1. dedicated bicycle lanes,16
2. with marked shared lanes, bike/bus lanes, or some combina- tion of dedicated and shared facility types, or
3. no marked bicycle facilities observed during the 2015 count period.
The total number of bicyclists observed was found to be 23-25%
greater at count locations with shared or dedicated bike lanes than at sites with no bicycle facility present (Figure 20).
Thirty-three and 32% of bicyclists were female at locations with bike lanes or shared lanes, respectively, compared to only 27% at loca- tions with no bikeway (Figure 21).
Helmet use was observed at the greatest rates where bike lanes or shared lanes are present (23-24%%), and slightly lower where no facilities have been installed (22%) (Figure 22).
16 The Jefferson Davis Parkway Bridge count location, which includes a shared- use trail, was included for the purpose of this analysis in the group of sites with dedicated bike lanes
23-25% more bicyclists observed at locations with bike lanes than where no facility present
Finally, while 89-91% of bicyclists traveled legally on roadways where bikeways are present, only 74% of users were observed doing so on roadways with no facility (Figure 23).
Taken together, these figures suggest that not only are there likely to be more bicyclists present where facilities exist, but that those users will tend to practice safer cycling behaviors and are more likely to be female. These figures also closely correspond with those reported for the 2014 counts, except that with citywide increases in the rate of helmet use observed, the usage gap between bikeway and non-bike- way locations appears to be diminishing.
In addition to these findings from the full set of 2015 count sites, PBRI continues to evaluate how these metrics have changed over time at the 12 core count locations observed from 2010-2015 (Table 23), as well as those sites counted from 2013-2015 (Table 24).
Among these two datasets, several new facilities have been added during the life of this count program, providing an opportunity to more clearly identify how infrastructure interventions impact rid- ership outcomes. Among the six-year, 2010-2015 dataset, a few key patterns emerge. From 2010 to 2015, the total number of bicyclist ob- served increased by 294% at locations that had dedicated bike lanes by March 2015, by 59% where shared lanes or a mix of facility types have been installed, and by 54% at locations with no bicycle facilities.
The proportion of riders who are female also increased by a much larger margin at locations with dedicated bike lanes—8 percentage points, compared to only a 4 point increase with shared lanes and a 2 point increase where no facilities exist.
As with the full site list, the difference between how many users wear helmets on bikeways and while riding on unmarked streets appears to have decreased as overall helmet use has increased, with a 14%
increase at locations with dedicated lanes or shared/mixed facility
types, and a 13% increase at sites with no facilities at all.
While the highest rates of right-way on-street travel were observed at sites with dedicated bicycle lanes (89%), it is notable that the increase in the share of legal riders has increased more rapidly most on sites with shared lane markings only (in part attributable to declines in le- gal travel at one heavily traveled count location with dedicated lanes, St. Claude Avenue).
Among locations counted from 2013-2015, sites were evaluated based on the presence or absence of any type of bicycle facility (all facilities are dedicated bicycle lanes except at Basin Street, which has a combination of dedicated bicycle lanes and an exclusive bike/bus lane).
Sharp gains in ridership were observed at several locations where dedicated bicycle lanes were installed in 2013. However, these in- creases were offset by declines observed at one location, St. Charles Avenue, for unknown reasons. As a result, only a 36% increase in overall ridership was observed at Bike Facility count sites, compared to a 25% increase at sites with no bikeway.
Similarly, the proportion of bicyclists who are female has increased only slightly overall at this set of sites, with no clear relationship between facility presence or lack thereof. Thanks in part to very high rates of helmet use during the first year of counts on St. Charles Avenue, helmet use decreased overall at bikeway sites in this dataset, while increasing at non-bikeway count locations.
Finally, while strong gains in right-way travel were made at two sites with recently installed bike lanes (St. Bernard Avenue and Basin Street), the overall dataset does not clearly demonstrate a link be- tween facility presence and correct use. Many unknown factors may contribute to the findings from this dataset, including shifting user groups at a given location, the development of additional route
214 210
161
0 50 100 150 200 250
Bike Lanes Shared Lanes/Mix of
Facility Types No Bicycle Facility
Average Bicyclists Observed per Site
Bicycle Facility Type Present
Average Bicyclists Observed (Per Site) by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locaons
32.5% 31.6%
27.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Bike Lanes Shared Lanes/Mix of
Facility Types No Bicycle Facility
Percent Female Bicyclists
Bicycle Facility Type Present
Percent of Bicyclists who are Female by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locaons
Figure 20: Average Bicyclists Observed (Per Site) by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locations
Figure 21: Percent of Bicyclists who are Female by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locations
23.4% 23.5%
21.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Bike Lanes Shared Lanes/Mix of
Facility Types No Bicycle Facility
Percent Helmet Use
Bicycle Facility Type Present
Percent of Bicyclists Wearing Helmets by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locaons
89.1% 91.2%
74.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Bike Lanes Shared Lanes/Mix of
Facility Types No Bicycle Facility
Percent Right Way, On-Street Riders
Bicycle Facility Type Present
Percent of Bicyclists Traveling Correctly by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locaons
Figure 22: Percent of Bicyclists Wearing Helmets by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locations
Figure 23: Percent of Bicyclists Traveling Correctly by Facility Type, All 2015 Count Locations
Table 23: Impact of Facilities on Change in User Behavior and Characteristics, 2010-2015 Count Locations
Change in Bicyclists Observed Change in % of Users who are Female Change in % of Users Wearing Hel-mets Change in % of Users Traveling the Right Way
Count Location by Bike Facility Type Year In-
stalled
2010 Bicyclists Observed
2015 Bicyclists
Observed % Change % Female, 2010 % Female, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change
Helmet
Use, 2010 Helmet Use, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change
% Right
Way, 2010 % Right Way, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change Bike Lanes
Gentilly Blvd 2010 46 165 258.7% 8.7% 24.8% 16.2% 13.0% 28.5% 15.5% 67.4% 88% 21%
St. Claude Ave 2008 96 340 254.2% 25.0% 29.7% 4.7% 2.1% 12.4% 10.3% 86.5% 83% -4%
Esplanade Ave 2013 105 468 345.7% 36.2% 42.3% 6.1% 7.6% 24.1% 16.5% 82.9% 95% 12%
Total 247 973 293.9% 26.7% 34.9% 8.2% 6.5% 20.8% 14.3% 85.0% 89% 4%
Shared Lane Markings
Harrison Ave 2014 27 68 151.9% 18.5% 33.8% 15.3% 11.1% 19.1% 8.0% 77.8% 77% -1%
Magazine St (Gateway) 2010 153 219 43.1% 36.6% 39.7% 3.1% 9.8% 25.6% 15.8% 68.6% 83% 14%
Total 180 287 59.4% 33.9% 38.3% 4.4% 10.0% 24.1% 14.1% 70.0% 81% 11%
No Bike Facility
Camp St 157 280 78.3% 36.3% 38.6% 2.3% 11.5% 31.4% 19.9% 69.4% 88% 19%
Simon Bolivar Ave 86 256 197.7% 7.0% 14.8% 7.9% 8.1% 13.3% 5.2% 57.0% 68% 11%
Decatur St 150 253 68.7% 26.0% 22.1% -3.9% 8.0% 23.7% 15.7% 83.3% 89% 6%
St. Charles Ave 191 276 44.5% 29.8% 33.3% 3.5% 24.6% 32.2% 7.6% 73.3% 89% 16%
Royal St 377 229 -39.3% 22.3% 36.7% 14.4% 6.6% 12.7% 6.1% 83.0% 91% 8%
Carondelet St 87 179 105.7% 31.0% 24.6% -6.5% 11.5% 32.4% 20.9% 70.1% 71% 1%
Magazine St (Uptown) 38 104 173.7% 18.4% 42.3% 23.9% 7.9% 38.5% 30.6% 26.3% 61% 34%
Total 1,086 1,677 54.4% 25.5% 27.8% 2.3% 11.2% 23.7% 12.5% 74.3% 77% 3%
ALL SITES 1,513 2,837 87.5% 26.7% 32.3% 5.2% 10.3% 23.6% 13.3% 75.5% 84% 9%
options, perceptions of safety (e.g., in some cases, helmet use may decrease when a facility is perceived as safer), and count timing.
More years of data are needed before clear patterns can be identi- fied.
As noted in previous iterations of this report, the relationship of the presence or absence of bicycle facilities and increases in pedes- trian activity is unclear. Pedestrian activity appears to be far more closecorrelated with land use and other factors, and thus is omitted from this analysis. However, most of the city’s bicycle infrastructure improvements have been installed concurrently with moderate
improvements in pedestrian accessibility, e.g. curb ramps at in- tersections and crosswalks, which improve conditions for existing users and support the development of an integrated and accessible pedestrian network throughout the region.
Table 24: Impact of Facilities on Change in User Behavior and Characteristics, 2013-2015 Count Locations
Change in Bicyclists Observed Change in % of Users who are
Female Change in % of Users Wearing
Helmets Change in % of Users Traveling the Right Way
Count Location by Bike
Facility Type Year In- stalled
2013 Bicyclists Observed
2015 Bicyclists
Observed % Change % Female, 2013 % Female, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change
Helmet
Use, 2013 Helmet Use, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change
% Right
Way, 2013 % Right Way, 2015
Percent- age Point
Change Bike Lanes or Shared Bike/
Bus Lanes
St. Bernard Ave 2013 88 259 194.3% 19.3% 17.8% -1.5% 14.8% 17.8% 3.0% 59.1% 79.5% 20.4%
Nashville Ave 2013 37 153 313.5% 35.1% 40.5% 5.4% 43.2% 49.0% 5.8% 100.0% 97.4% -2.6%
St. Charles Ave (Uptown) 2013 441 250 -43.3% 41.0% 39.6% -1.4% 44.0% 28.8% -15.2% 99.1% 96.0% -3.1%
S. Carrollton Ave 2010 206 268 30.1% 27.7% 34.0% 6.3% 26.2% 22.0% -4.2% 90.8% 92.9% 2.1%
Loyola Ave 2012 267 279 4.5% 9.7% 26.5% 16.8% 22.9% 22.6% -0.2% 74.9% 79.9% 5.0%
Basin St 2013 99 341 244.4% 25.3% 34.6% 9.3% 23.2% 33.1% 9.9% 71.7% 93.8% 22.1%
Total 1,138 1,550 36.2% 28.3% 30.8% 2.5% 32.5% 26.1% -6.5% 87.9% 88.2% 0.4%
No Bike Facility
S. Broad St 112 139 24.1% 10.7% 13.7% 3.0% 8.9% 15.8% 6.9% 51.8% 66.9% 15.1%
Tulane Ave 71 82 15.5% 16.9% 24.4% 7.5% 8.5% 11.0% 2.5% 43.7% 61.0% 17.3%
Broad St Bridge 57 80 40.4% 8.8% 15.0% 6.2% 12.3% 12.5% 0.2% 70.2% 50.0% -20.2%
Total 240 301 25.4% 12.1% 17.0% 4.9% 9.6% 13.6% 4.0% 53.8% 60.8% 7.1%
ALL SITES 1,378 1,851 34.3% 24.9% 29.2% 4.4% 26.7% 25.3% -1.4% 80.1% 84.8% 4.7%
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
This section summarizes data retrieved from the Jefferson Davis Trail Eco-Counter from June 2010 through June 2015, as well as the first year of data from a trail counter installed on the Tammany Trace in Mandeville, LA, in May, 2014. It also includes findings from a series of short term, exploratory electronic counter installations on trails in the metro area, as well as a mini-analysis conducted in conjunc- tion with the implementation of a buffered bicycle lane on Baronne Street in New Orleans’ CBD. The expansion of New Orleans’ capacity for electronic data collection greatly improves our ability to eval- uate infrastructure, as well as providing the opportunity for more detailed future analysis of active transportation behaviors that can improve the accuracy of Estimated Daily Traffic estimates derived from manual counts.
4.1 Jefferson Davis Trail, 2010-2015
This data represents findings from New Orleans’ longest continuous- ly operating active transportation monitor, which provides valuable information about long term trends and the temporal and meteoro- logical variables that impact people who walk and bike. For addi- tional detailed data tables, please refer to Appendix J.
4.1.1 Observed Traffic Volumes and Change
Figure 24 shows the monthly average daily traffic volumes observed on the Jefferson Davis Trail from July 2010 through June 2015.17 Over the last four years, average daily usership has increased from an average of 464 users per day to 641—a 38% total increase (Figure 26). During the 2014-2015 study period, total and average daily usage declined compared to the previous year, though this may be in party attributable to disruptions caused by construction of the Lafitte Greenway, which intersects the Jefferson Davis Trail on the adjacent block, as well as on the Jefferson Davis Trail itself, which un- derwent crossing improvements and for which a temporary detour was implemented at the highway overpass during this period.
In 2014-2015, user volumes were highest in March, April, May, and October. The lowest volumes were recorded August and December.
These patterns generally align with previous years of data, which indicate higher usage in temperate spring and autumn months as well as during special events, e.g. nearby festivals, sporting events, and carnival season.
17 Due to dislocation and subsequent temporary de-installation of the electron- ic count device during the months of April and May, 2013, a total usership figure for the third year of the device’s operation is not available.