Cyclist Injury Data Has Been Released Necessitating Some Obvious Questions
An article published by the Canadian Press, dated August 2, 2022 contained some important data on recent cycling injuries in Ontario and Canada. In part, the article noted:
“The Canadian Institute for Health Information has released national data that covers hospitalizations and emergency department visits from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. It shows hospitalizations for all injuries dropped by about 15,000 visits year-over-year to 256,000 — but hospitalizations for cycling injuries increased 25 per cent to 5,255. The jump was especially big in Ontario, which logged 1,579 bike-related hospitalizations and accounted for about 30 per cent of all cycling traumas. The province also saw nearly 29,000 trips to the emergency room for cycling injuries, up one third from the year before. Nationally, CIHI says cycling-related ER visits jumped 36 per cent to 43,700 and hospitalizations for biking brain injuries increased to 776 from 563.“
The cited report is not presently accessible to the public on the CIHI website. It is not clear why since the Canadian Press article indicated that the CIHI “released” the national data which was published on July 28, 2022. The CIHI reports that it is funded by several government agencies and such information would be highly important for the public to evaluate.
While cycling injuries have been rising there has been little indication of this in news made available to the public. In London, Ontario, like in many similar cities, there have been many adjustments made to roadways with the creation of new cycling lanes. And there have been reports that the cycling mode of transportation is on the rise. Yet little has been said about what types of collisions involve cyclists, what injuries have occurred and under what circumstances. A glance at news media articles would make one believe that very few cyclist injuries occur in the City.
As an example, in the year 2019 there were 6 incidents reported in the news media of collisions occurring within the City of London. One collision, reportedly occurring on Hamilton Rd west of Highbury Ave, caused fatal injuries to the cyclist. The remaining 5 incidents involved injuries but scant information was provided as to the details of those injuries or in what circumstances they occurred. A single cyclist collision that occurred on Exeter Road near Wonderland garnered more attention as the young male cyclist sustained severe head injuries and the progress of his recuperation was publicized over many months.
In contrast another cyclist collision that caused critical injuries to the cyclist in late August of 2019 on Commissioners Road near Andover Drive received very little publicity and minimal information was revealed about the circumstances in which the injuries occurred.
Meanwhile, in the year 2020, when the Canadian Institute For Health Information (CIHI) reported the very large increases in cyclist injuries, there was only a single incident in London that became reported by news media. That incident was a collision in which a retired university professor was killed while attempting to ride his bicycle across Gainsborough Rd just west of Hyde Park Road in west London. Again, very little, if anything, was officially reported about how and why the cyclist was killed. An article written by Dale Carruthers, of the London Free Press, quoted a a cyclist who used that portion of the multi-use path where the collision occurred, reported that “When you’re coming from the north of the bike path, there’s bushes on the right, so you would have to come pretty cautiously to get across the road,”. But no official response was given by either City or police officials. In fact, testing as the site by Gorski Consulting shortly after the incident revealed a number of deficiencies and high speeds of motor vehicle traffic: facts that should have been obvious to the City and police.
And in 2021, another year relating to the CIHI data regarding increasing cycling injuries, not a single news item was noted reporting any cyclist collision in the City of London. Does this mean that, throughout Ontario, a massive increase in cyclist injuries was occurring but in London there was a miraculous lack of those incidents?
Is A Cyclist Travelling 26 km/h Speeding?
Is a cyclist travelling at 26 km/h within High Park in Toronto a dangerous speeder that requires police intervention? This is an interesting question that sparked debate this week causing Toronto’s Mayor to jump into the verbal fracas. Chris Fox of CP24 News reported that Mayor John Tory defended police for ticketing cyclists when police received complaints that cyclists were speeding through High Park. Tory referred to a “safe balance between all those different activities and no group can have their rights supersede the rights of others”. With reference to a cyclist ticketed for travelling 26 km/h in the park’s 20 km/h posted maximum speed, does this speed represent an unacceptable danger to other users of the park?
It would seem that an important issue is that the danger of speed is relative to the situation and location. Travelling 6 km/h faster than the 100 km/h speed limit on Highway 401 would seem dangerous only because this speeding is too little and could result in a vehicle being rear-ended in some parts of the expressway where average speeds are well over 120 km/h. Similarly a passenger car travelling 6 km/h faster than the 50 km/h speed limit on an urban street also would not draw any attention from police.
But what about a cyclist travelling 26 km/h along the right edge of an urban street? Is that dangerous? Again, does it not matter where this speed was attained? Was it on a busy roadway with many pedestrians and average cyclist speeds of only 15 km/h? Or did it occur on an open portion of a arterial road where few pedestrians are found? So does the actual speed matter or does it matter whether a cyclist is travelling substantially faster than the average cyclist at that location and time?
In order to understand what danger is posed by a cyclist speed of 26 km/h, one should also have some idea of past instances of injury and cyclist speed. But what information do persons have about this important relationship? How many persons actually have the data and knowledge to have a clear idea of what danger is posed by a cyclist speed of 26 km/h? In fact essentially no data is publicly available about this relationship.
The danger of cyclist behaviour was demonstrated in the CP24 News article by the following: “CP24 cameras saw dozens of cyclists breezing through an intersections (sic) in the park without slowing or stopping at the clearly visible stop sign”. Thus this observation brought to the public’s attention seems like a good reason to believe that cyclist behaviour in High Park is exceptionally more dangerous, thus requiring police presence. But what is typical of cyclist behaviour at stop signs generally in Toronto or anywhere else in the Province of Ontario? Do cyclists typically come to a full stop at any intersection where there is a stop sign? Did CP24 News know that information? Did they conduct a study? At Gorski Consulting all kinds of vehicle motions have been documented by video throughout southern Ontario for many years. We can conclusively say full stops by cyclists at stop signs, unless forced by opposing traffic, are a very, very rare occurrence, much more rare than the full stops not achieved by motor vehicles. Suggesting that such non-stops are an indicator or dangerous actions is simply wrong.
Speeding is believed to exist when a traffic unit moves at a speed greater than the posted speed of a roadway or path. As an example, the City of London recently posted maximum-speed signs of 15 km/h along several sections of its Thames Valley Parkway (TVP). In that sense a cyclist travelling at 6 km/h above this posted speed should be ticketed by police. Cyclist speeds were documented by Gorski Consulting in July, 2021 at one of these segments (Greenway Park). This location was very flat and straight. This showed that eastbound cyclists travelled at an average speed of 21.8 km/h whereas westbound cyclist speeds were 19.4 km/h. Should more than half of the eastbound cyclists be ticketed by police? This segment contained a very minimal downgrade in the eastbound direction yet, even this minimal influence, caused the average speed of cyclists to differ by 2.4 km/h between eastbound and westbound directions of travel. What would happen if the path slopes were much greater as they are in Toronto’s High Park?
Observations at several locations of such slopes in London have shown that average speeds of cyclists rise essentially proportionate to the steepness and length of a down-slope. As an example taken from video on the TVP near Trafalgar Street, average speeds were noted to be over 40 km/h. This occurred from travelling down a slope for about 150 metres with a maximum 9.5% grade at one short segment, and an average slope of 5.5%. No measurements of slopes have been obtained from the High Park location in Toronto but it is known that significant drops in elevation occur as the park approaches toward the edge of Lake Ontario.
So yes, speeds of cyclists at High Park could be quite high along these significant down-slopes. But that has little to do with the dangerous actions of individual cyclists. It has more to do with the fact that, given any recreational cyclist, a high speed will be attained on a significant down-slope regardless of the location, whether on a roadway or on a path within a park. This conclusion is not mere baseless comment but is supported by substantial video documentations.
In summary, a narrow preoccupation with speed as the sole designator of what is unsafe or dangerous is an erroneous approach. At what location was the speed attained? How does it compare to the average speed of similar traffic units? What could the consequences be of such a speed in terms of injury causation? And there are many similar questions that need to be considered before conclusions should be drawn about speed and its consequences.
E-Bike Users of the Thames Valley Parkway in London Ontario
Recent studies by Gorski Consulting provide an illustration of the very large increase in e-bike ridership in London Ontario. As an example several videotaping sessions have been conducted along London’s Thames Valley Trail (TVP) in the past year. The table below shows the results of 4 videotaping sessions conducted in 2021 versus 4 similar sessions conducted in the 2022.
As can be seen a total of 1249 cyclists were observed riding on the TVP. The table shows that small percentages of e-bikes were observed in 2021 ranging between 1 and 5%. In contrast the 4 studies in 2022 show an average of 11.29% e-bikes riding on the TVP. This is a very large increase within on year’s time.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Session #4 Results
Session #4 of the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) was completed by Gorski Consulting on Monday, July 18, 2022. Documentation occurred between the 2-hour period of 1201 and 1401 hours. The table below shows the observations in Session #4 compared to the three previous Sessions.
As can be seen the total number of traffic units observed in Session #4 (349) was just slightly higher than in Session #3 (333) but substantially lower than Session #1 (758) and Session #2 (545). The smallest number of eastbound motor vehicles (only 68) were observed crossing Blackfriars Bridge in Session #4. Similarly, the smallest number of cyclists (89) was also noted. However the number of pedestrians (182) was comparable to Session #2 and substantially higher than in Session #3.
Overall, looking at all four Sessions, there were one and a half times more cyclists observed (683) than motor vehicles (414), and about twice as many pedestrians (822) were observed compare to motor vehicles. And combining all the traffic units that were observed (1985) there were almost 4 times as many cyclists/pedestrians/non-pedestrians (1571) as there were motor vehicles.
Breaking down the numbers in the Session #4, the arrival of motor vehicles at the site was documented at 15-minute intervals as noted in the table below. There appeared to be nothing unusual in these arrivals.
The arrival and departure of cyclists at the site in Session #4 is also shown in the table below. As explained previously, the “Source” column notes the direction from which cyclists arrived at the site and the three remaining columns indicate in which direction the cyclists departed the site.
The above table shows that, by far, the number of cyclists entering the site was either from southbound (SB TVP) or northbound (NB TVP) along the Thames Valley Parkway. Seventy-eight (78) of the total 89 cyclists originated from the TVP and 69 of those cyclists continued riding on the TVP as they passed through the site.
We can also examine the actions of pedestrians as shown in the table below and here we can see a substantially different pattern of travel as compared to cyclists.
Of the total 88 pedestrians who approached the site from the TVP only 50 continued along it. A large number of pedestrians (26) turned from the TVP to travel westbound onto the Blackfriars Bridge. And there was also a large number of pedestrians observed travelling eastbound on the Blackfriars Bridge (42) and then departing primarily onto the TVP.
Interestingly, the approach of pedestrians onto the site was about equally divided amongst the four sources (SB TVP=47, NB TVP=41, NB Ridout=52, and EB Blackfriars=42). This is obviously different from the cyclist actions where a very large percentage arrived from the TVP.
We can also look at a summary of all 4 sessions combined for cyclists and pedestrians. The table below shows the summary for cyclists.
In the above table the predominance of cyclists riding on the TVP is obvious. Of the total 683 cyclists who were observed, 562 entered the study area from either southbound or northbound TVP, or about 82%. And of those 562 cyclists, 486 (86%) continued to travel along the TVP.
The next table provides the summary for pedestrians from all four Sessions.
The predominance of cyclists riding on the TVP is not so strongly demonstrated in the pedestrian traffic. Of the 822 pedestrians who were observed in the 4 Sessions, only 497, or about 60.5% originated from the TVP. Substantial numbers of pedestrians entered the study area from northbound Ridout (129) and eastbound Blackfriars Bridge (196).
In summary, there is still substantial variance in the volumes of the traffic units from one session to the next. In Session #1 a total of 758 units were observed. In contrast, Session #3 yielded 333 and Session #4 yielded 349. This is partly due to the large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians that were observed on the Sunday afternoon in Session #1. It is expected that additional Sessions will be conducted in the near future and some of this variance may be better explained.
Female Cyclist Users of the Thames Valley Parkway in London Ontario
Gorski Consulting has been monitoring various aspects of cycling in London Ontario for over a decade. One area of interest has been the apparent lack of ridership by females and what may be the cause. Recent documentations along London’s Thames Valley Parkway allow for further analysis of this issue.
Over the years Gorski Consulting has conducted a number of videotaping sessions in London which have documented the numbers of cyclists, pedestrians and non-pedestrians. A table of some of these documentations is shown below.
Comparing the numbers of cyclists to pedestrians the hourly average noted at the bottom the table shows about 15 cyclists and 36 pedestrians. However this average is misleading. A quick glance at the last two sessions (“19-Springbank Park at Storybook Gardens” and “20-Gibbons Park at Victoria”) documented very large numbers of pedestrians versus cyclists. The rest of the sessions however suggest more evenly matched frequencies. Never-the-less this data provides some general idea of the historic numbers of users of various facilities in London by cyclists and pedestrians.
With respect to females our data has indicated some unexplained results with respect to the numbers of female cyclists observed riding next to the right-of-ways of roads in London. The table below shows some data that was created from photos taken of cyclists riding on or next to the City’s roads from the year 2013 through to the end of 2021.
It can be seen in the above table that the percentage of female cyclists has been consistently low compared to the overall number of observed cyclists. The overall average of just 14.51% should cause us to wonder why this is so low and what may be the cause of this result. As indicated before, it is advantageous to the well-being of the City of London, and generally the Province of Ontario, Canada and worldwide that cycling become a more dominant form of transportation. If male cyclists are the predominate users of this mode then we are missing the opportunity of advancing cycling to much-needed, higher levels.
More recent observations of cyclists have been preformed by Gorski Consulting including observations along the City’s Thames Valley Parkway (TVP). The TVP is a multi-user path system that generally follows the forks of the Thames River. City-wide it is possible to ride about 40 kilometres in a circular fashion around the City or along selected legs of the path network.
From our viewpoint the TVP appears to be a very busy transportation network for cyclists and pedestrians. In fact our analysis suggests that it is the most-used network by both cyclists and pedestrians in London.
The results of more-recent documentations of cyclists and pedestrians along the TVP are shown in the table below. The sessions in this table are all from 2-hour documentations by multiple video cameras. The table is separated into observations of cyclists and pedestrians.
The above table includes the very recent results from the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) which is incomplete. Data about the numbers of pedestrians in the BBTS have not yet been completed but total pedestrian observations have been included.
In the last column of the above table are some interesting results of about the percentage of females observed in these sessions. Looking at the cyclist observations the percentage of observed females is about 26%. While this is low, it is substantially higher than the average of 14.51% observed on City roads (2013-2021) shown in the previous table.
Another interesting finding is with respect to the percentage of female pedestrians documented at the same time and location as the cyclists. No calculations exist yet from the BBTS but of the four remaining sessions the average number of observed female pedestrians is 48.95%, or essentially equal to the number of males.
In summary, our data shows that, historically, very female cyclists are observed riding on or adjacent to City roads, but the numbers of female cyclists riding along the TVP seems to be higher. And the number of female pedestrians observed along the TVP is almost equal to males. What do these results mean?
For readers it may mean that some basic conclusions may be possible? For us it means that more data will be collected.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Exploring Traffic Conflicts
This article presents an example of a traffic conflict at the site of the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study in London, Ontario. Its intent is to explain how such traffic conflicts can be identified and analysed using the video data that has been obtained in the traffic study.
This example involved a northbound female cyclist riding on the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) and approaching the pedestrian crossing zone at the east end of Blackfriars Bridge. At the same time an eastbound passenger car was crossing Blackfriars Bridge and approaching the pedestrian crossing at the TVP. The incident occurred at approximately 1632 hours during Session #2 on June 17, 2022.
With respect to the car, video cameras captured its travel passing by several markers painted on the road. This allowed the calculation of the vehicle’s speed at several distances approaching the crosswalk. Similarly, video cameras also captured the cycle crossing several markers and speeds of the cycle could also be obtained on approach to the crosswalk.
The photo below shows the cyclist passing the painted marker at 20 metres south of the pedestrian crossing.
The cyclist is then observed passing the marker at 10 metres south of the crossing, seen in the photo below,
It took 2.27 seconds for the cyclist to travel the 10 metre distance between the 20 and 10-metre-markers and therefore her average speed over that distance was 4.41 metres per second (m/s) or 15.86 kilometres per hour (km/h).
In the above photo it can be seen that the cyclist has her head turned slightly to the left and it would be expected that she might be looking for approaching traffic on the road. At the same time there is a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk within her line of sight and this pedestrian may have provided some blockage of her view of traffic on the road.
The photo below shows an eastward view along Blackfriars Bridge and we can see the approaching car which is positioned at the “10-metre-west” marker, or 10 metres west of the west edge of the pedestrian crossing. Note that same pedestrian can be seen on the sidewalk.
Looking at the car’s speed we noted that it was travelling at 24.19 km/h between the 60 and 35-metre-markers. It then reduced its speed to 22.90 km/h between the 35 and 10-metre-markers.
The photo below now shows the cyclist at the south edge of the pedestrian crossing. We noted that, between the 10-metre-marker and the south edge of the road her average speed was 13.19 km/h. Her speed was reduced further to 12.15 km/h in the distance she travelled through the pedestrian crossing. Given the small speed loss it is likely that this occurred from typical rolling resistance rather than from any braking.
Within the distance of 10 metres of approach to the west edge of the pedestrian crossing the car’s average speed was 18.27 km/h. While this is a reduction in speed of about 3.5 km/h from the previous segment the speed loss is not large. There is a substantial upslope of the road at this location so the speed loss could be from that source.
The photo below shows a view looking east at 35 metres west of the pedestrian crossing. Here we can see the taillights of the car and the brake lights are not illuminated.
Another view from the rear of the car is shown below as the cyclist travels across the vehicle’s path. Again no brake lights are illuminated.
In the next two photos we can see the gap between the front of the car and the left side of the cycle as the two units pass by each other.
The pedestrian crossing is 3.92 metres wide and the cyclist is riding generally in the middle of the crossing so it is about 2 metres away from the west edge of the crossing. Yet the shadow from the front end of the car shows that it has crossed over the west edge of the pedestrian crossing. So the front end of the car must be slightly less than 2 metres away from the cyclist as the two units pass each other. Yet, as mentioned before, there is no evidence of braking by the driver whose vehicle travels at an average speed of 17.21 km/h or 4.78 m/s within the pedestrian crossing. At this speed of 4.78 m/s the front end of the car, positioned where it is shown in the above photo, could reach the location of the cyclist in less than 2 metres or less than 0.4 seconds. So this has to be viewed as a “near miss” or a collision that was just barely avoided.
We would want to search for instances like these in the video analysis. What is the probability that a collision could occur at this location and what could be the consequences of such a collision?
The summary table below was shown in a previous article and provides the broad numbers of traffic units documented during our three Sessions.
The total number of eastbound vehicles passing through the site was only 346 over the period of 6 hours of documentation, or about 57.7 vehicles per hour. This is a low volume and one might be quick to suggest that dangers of a collision involving a motor vehicle are likely low. Yet the above table also shows that 1290 other units comprised of cyclists, pedestrians and non-pedestrians were also documented in that 6 hour period, or about 215 units per hour. Thus the volume of the non-motor-vehicle units is almost four times as large as the number of motor vehicles. Thus the argument could be made that, although few motor vehicles exist, when the do exist they are likely to encounter these other units. These other units are much more likely to be injured if a collision occurs. Thus this risk and danger needs to be kept in mind when considering the suitability of allowing motor vehicle traffic on the Blackfriars Bridge.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Session #3 Results
Results from Session #3 of the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) have now been completed with respect to motor vehicle, cyclist and pedestrians volumes. Documentation in Session #3 occurred between 0648 and 0848 hours. Overall fewer observations were made in Session #3 compared to Sessions #1 and #2. The following tables will summarize the findings.
The first table below shows a comparison of the results from all three Sessions.
Some minor corrections were made to the previously mentioned data as it was discovered that the data collection sheets for cyclists and pedestrians was missing a “29” and the rows were labelled 28 then 30. Thus the total number of observations erroneously indicated one more observation. This correction has resulted in reduced totals by one observation in several cells.
With respect to motor vehicles the 112 observations in Session #3 was substantially lower than the 157 in Session #2 but substantially higher than the 77 in Session #1. With respect to the remaining observations (Cyclists, Pedestrians and Non-Pedestrians) all cells showed smaller frequencies than the first two Sessions.
Recall that “Non-Pedestrians” are those observed to be riding objects such as scooters, skateboards, roller-blades, medical carts, wheelchairs, etc. that do not fit into the three basic categories of motor-vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. In Session #3 only two Non-Pedestrians were observed: a male riding an e-scooter northbound on Ridout continuing westbound on the cycling lane of Blackfriars Bridge, and a male who was observed carrying his skateboard southbound across the pedestrian crossing and then jumping on the board just south of the crossing and continuing to ride southbound on the TVP. This seems quite minimal compared to the 25 and 29 observations of Non-Pedestrians in the previous two Sessions.
The next table below shows the distribution of cyclist actions in Session #3 as they passed through the site. As explained previously, the “Source” column indicates the direction from which the cyclist entered the study area and the remaining three columns indicate where the cyclist travelled upon leaving the study area. Similar tables have been shown in the previous articles discussing the previous two Sessions.
Given the early start in the morning (0648 hours) it is possible that the beginning of the session did not capture the morning peak of traffic and this is suggested in the following table which breaks down the frequencies of cyclist arrivals at the study site every 10 minutes. The data suggests that (at least) in the first 20 minutes until 0708 hours the number of cyclist observations was quite low (4 and 6 respectively).
The next table shows the data for pedestrian observations.
Similar to the cyclist observations the pedestrian volumes appeared to be low in the early part of the morning as shown in the table below which shows pedestrians arrivals at 15 minute intervals. It may be reasonable to say that pedestrian volumes up to 0733 hours were low (5, 6 and 8 observations respectively) in the first three 15-minute segments.
And finally a similar summary for motor vehicles suggests a low volume in the early part of the morning, as shown in the table below which shows motor vehicle arrivals at the study area at 10-minute intervals.
The above findings might suggest that the peak volume of traffic units at the site does not begin until sometime around 0730 hours. This may provide some explanation for the lower numbers of observations of all traffic units in Session #3.
In summary, there is still considerable variability in the volumes of the various traffic units from one Session to another. Yet we are starting to see a general range in those volumes. More data should help to stabilize this variance.
We have yet to discuss traffic conflicts in our study. This cannot be done until we conduct calculations of the approach speeds of the traffic units and this is likely to take considerable time. Some discussion of the methods/procedures of evaluating traffic conflicts will require a separate article in which we can use an example of how this analysis could take place.
For the future it is expected that (at least) another documentation Session will take place in the not too distant future. This documentation will occur early in the work week, perhaps a Monday or a Tuesday and the timing should be somewhere near noon to 1400 hours. Please stay connected as to these further developments.
Gorski Consulting Site Up & Running After Issues
The Gorski Consulting website has been down for several days but is now up and running. Welcome back.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study Session #3 Completed
An example of one of the 10 video cameras that were used on July 6, 2022 to document users of the Blackfriars Bridge and Thames Valley Parkway in London, Ontario.
Session #3 of the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) was completed this morning, July 6, 2022, between 0700 and 0900 hours. This data will be revealing as it comes from the morning peak (rush) hours in the middle of a work week. We are now in the process of copying and shrinking the videos to enable insertion into our Adobe Premiere video-editting program. This should take a couple of days.
There are always unusual situations that arise when conducting such observations. In this Session a sidewalk sweeper appeared at the site travelling northbound on the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP), as shown in the photo below.
Larger vehicles such as this sidewalk sweeper are needed to maintain the trail yet they pose safety problems since the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) in not meant to accommodate such vehicles.
The narrow confides of the TVP make it difficult for units like this sweeper to conduct its maintenance activities in safety, as shown in the photo below.
On the steep downgrade of the TVP just north of Blackfriars Bridge a cyclist may not see a maintenance sweeper in sufficient time to avoid it, particularly in this section that is also quite narrow. Practical difficulties such as these need to be highlighted to warn cyclists and pedestrians so that they can be on the lookout.
It is important to document any safety-related problems in an unbiased and clear way. Some conflicts may be inevitable but if we done not identify them we will never know if some can be done to lessen their consequences. Once the basic volumes of traffic units have been reasonably well established at the Blackfriars Bridge we will be able to look more closely at some of these potential conflicts. Stay tuned for more data…
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Session #2 – Large Reduction in Pedestrian Observations
Results have now been tabulated showing the pedestrian volumes from Session #2 of the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) in London, Ontario. A reduction in pedestrian volumes of almost 100% was observed compared to Session #1. The table below shows the pedestrian results from Session #2.
In comparison, the table below shows the pedestrian results from Session #1.
Although there were fewer observed pedestrians in Session #2, a larger percentage of those turned toward crossing the Blackfriars Bridge in comparison to Session #1.
For example of the 140 pedestrians in Session #2 who approached the study area from SB TVP, NB TVP and NB Ridout, 72 persons turned to cross Blackfriars Bridge. This is slightly more than 50%. In contrast, in Session #1, 279 persons approached the study area from the three noted sources but only 98 persons turned to cross Blackfriars Bridge. This is only 35 % of that total. These results are from rather small numbers of observations so there is nothing conclusive to be drawn at this time.
In addition to the observations of pedestrians we have also kept track of “Non-Pedestrians”. These are persons who ride roller-blades, e-skateboards, e-scooters, electric or non-powered wheel-chairs, etc. and do not fit into the three categories (pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles) that we have been reporting. Interestingly, in Session #1 there were 25 observations of such Non-Pedestrians whereas in Session #2 there were 27. Specifically there were 11 observations of e-scooters in Session #2 whereas there were only 3 such observations in Session #1. It was also interesting to observe that in Session #1 there were 8 observations of elderly or infirm persons riding electric, medical carts or wheelchairs. In Session #2 there was only one such observation. Although the numbers discussed here are rather small they may provide some information about the differences in populations using the study area on a Sunday afternoon (Session #1) versus a peak-hour Friday afternoon (Session #2).
No detailed analyses have been conducted so far with respect to the speeds of the observed units and what traffic conflicts may exist. It is expected that such analyses will be performed sometime in the future. We expect to conduct Session #3 in the not too distant future and those results will be posted again on this Gorski Consulting website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.