Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Comments:

– It would be beneficial to get the project in front of people to raise awareness. Conferences such as the APA Conference (Sept 12 & 13) and the MPO RPC Conference (Sept 9-11) are recommended for this purpose.

Suggestions:

– UWM needs to reach out to local public works departments for counts on local roads.

– For counts on county roads, reaching out to county public works departments is necessary.

– For Mayville, it’s suggested to contact the village administrator and potentially the public works director.

– In Whitewater, the contact is Brad Marquardt (DPW Director).

– For Slinger, since the location is a connecting highway with local jurisdiction, UWM should contact the local DPW rather than WisDOT.

– Consider the potential need for electrical or data connections; using solar-powered technology might be a viable option.

– Madison may have permanent counters that continuously record data; contacting Renee Callaway is suggested.

– SEWRPC might have permanent count locations; Joe Delmagori is a good contact.

Questions:

– Does UWM need to fill out forms or have agreements when reaching out to cities or counties?

– Are there any recommendations for additional needs such as electrical or data connections for the project?

Comments:

– STH 32 & Juneau is favored due to pedestrian activity.

– National Ave & 5th is recommended because of upcoming cross-section changes.

– Layton & Burnham is near schools, parks, and businesses, but 35th & Burnham might be better due to proximity to a grocery store and parks.

– Concerns that transit stops at Layton and Burnham might skew counts.

– Representation from a residential corridor makes sense, but Layton Ave has transit at most intersections.

– UWM will manually review video counts to validate data.

– Videos need to be broken into smaller time periods for ease of loading and navigation.

– Full-day videos are challenging to navigate.

Suggestions:

– Consider using a different urban area than Milwaukee to represent Wisconsin urban areas.

– For rural locations, avoid trails as WisDOT/SEWRPC is already doing trail counts.

– Consider state highways versus local roads, considering traffic volumes and cyclist behavior.

– Evaluate rural locations based on township population size and whether they have schools, business bases, sidewalks, or intersections.

– UWM to evaluate different locations and select one to represent a rural location in Wisconsin.

– Suggestion to look at high-risk areas identified in the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment for temporary counts.

– Matthew Gast suggests looking into locations such as E 14th St in Marshfield and WI-91 in Berlin due to their relevance to the discussion.

Questions:

– Are all locations intended to be intersection counts or total pedestrian counts?

– Who is the point of contact for Milwaukee regarding the permit process for mounting on infrastructure?

– Where will the videos be stored, and will they be accessible later?

• Comments
  • Site Selection Guidance: Provided guidance on count locations and noted considerations for special events like the Hank Aaron State Trail 5K candlelight walk.
  • Communication Methods: Expressed concern that emails were not drawing sufficient attention, with a recommendation to focus on using the website and include a sign-up option for updates.
  • Committee Goals/Tasks:
    • Mentioned partners and resources involved, including WisDOT, MnDOT, TxDOT, NCDOT, and various local entities.
    • Identified conferences and meetings previously as key communication platforms.

• Suggestions
  • Website and Updates: Suggested establishing an annual meeting for partners conducting counts, ideally held in late winter/early spring, and including a sign-up for updates option on the website.
  • Count Locations Review: Recommended reviewing count locations within WisDOT’s GIS Resources for equity and appropriate stratification.

• Questions
  • A request was made for a project description to be included in an introductory email to potential partners, indicating a need for clear communication regarding the project’s scope and objectives.

• Comments
  • Data Collection Methods: Discussed are various methodologies for collecting data, including potential crowdsourcing, the use of Eco Counter Pyro Box for infrared counting, and Eco Counter Mobile Multi Units Viva sensors and Axis cameras.
  • Count Site Locations: Provided details on suggested locations for count sites, including the need for coordination with David Meurett for a signalized and unsignalized crossing at UW-Stevens Point, which is considering a road diet.
  • Data Collection Points: Bob provided a comprehensive list of data points to be collected, covering location, type of data, facility type, and numerous other metrics, detailed on the last page of the minutes.

• Suggestions
  • Data Collection and Privacy: Raised concerns about privacy issues regarding collecting demographic data like age and disability status during manual/video counts.
  • Data Sharing Platform: Discussed the need to establish a website with UWM for data sharing where users can be certified and download data in various formats like Excel spreadsheets and shapefiles.
  • Infrastructure Data Considerations: Additional infrastructure-related data points like pedestrian level of stress, bike level of stress, and other site conditions such as signals, curb extensions, and obstructions near intersections are recommended.

• Questions
  • Questioned whether the current counting equipment can store sufficient data for the proposed two-week counts and discussed geographic spread for the data collection.
  • Raised the need to establish methodologies for processing collected data to ensure it’s usable and valuable for project insights and future planning.

•  Comments
  • Count Devices: Discussed various counting technologies such as Mio Vision and Eco Counter, including their cost, capabilities, and limitations for specific uses like counting scooters.
  • Data Collection and Site Selection: Emphasized the need to incorporate data from existing count stations and potentially use crowdsourced data. Specific details were provided about temporary and permanent counts, types of sensors and cameras used, and integration of different data sources.
  • Protocols and QA/QC: Highlighted the requirements for lighting systems in cameras and proposed a minimum count duration to ensure reliability, including considerations for special events.

• Suggestions
  • Counting Technology Recommendations: Provided insights on selecting appropriate technology based on lessons learned from previous projects. Mentioned the effectiveness of using in-house or consultant-recommended technologies over manual counts.
  • Data Handling and Anomaly Management: Suggested strategies for handling data anomalies and proposed a focus on specific types of data collection methodologies depending on urban or rural contexts.
  • Literature Review and Information Sharing: There was a suggestion to summarize the information from the literature review and share findings and updates via webinars and presentations to keep the TAC informed.

• Questions
  • Inquired about the extent and focus of the literature review that UWM has done or plans to do as part of the project, emphasizing the need to understand the foundational research guiding the project’s technical approaches.