Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CONTENTS
List
of
Figures......................................................................................................... 3
Background............................................................................................................ 4
Executive
Summary ...............................................................................................6
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Ratios ................................................................................8
Bicycle
Volumes .................................................................................................... 11
Bicycling
Behavior.................................................................................................13
Bicyclist
Gender ....................................................................................................14
Bicycle
Parking..................................................................................................... 16
Methodological
Summary................................................................................... 19
About
Parklet
Studies.......................................................................................... 20
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1:
Downtown
Bicycle
Facilities,
Existing
and
Proposed.......................................... 5
Figure
2:
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Totals,
Peak
Hours
2012
and
2013 ................................... 8
Figure
3:
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Totals,
Weekday
Peak
Hours
2012.................................. 9
Figure
4:
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Totals,
Weekday
2013 .................................................... 9
Figure
5:
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Totals,
Weekend
Peak
Hours
2012................................10
Figure
6:
Cyclist
and
Pedestrian
Totals,
Weekend
2013 ...................................................10
Figure
7:
Cyclist
Volumes,
Weekday
2012/2013 ................................................................. 11
Figure
8:
Cyclist
Volumes,
Weekend
2012/2013 ................................................................. 11
Figure
9:
Percent
Change,
Weekday
Peak
Hour
Cyclist
Volumes
2012/2013 ................... 12
Figure
10:
Percent
Change,
Weekend
Peak
Hour
Cyclist
Volumes
2012/2013 ................. 12
Figure
11:
Bicycling
Behavior
2013 ...................................................................................... 13
Figure
12:
Cyclist
Gender
2013 ............................................................................................14
Figure
13:
Cyclist
Gender,
Weekday
2013 ..........................................................................15
Figure
14:
Cyclist
Gender,
Weekend
2013..........................................................................15
Figure
15:
Bicycle
Parking,
Formal
and
Informal
Percentages,
2012.................................16
Figure
16:
Bicycle
Parking,
Formal
and
Informal
Counts,
2012.........................................16
Figure
17:
Bicycle
Parking
between
6th
and
7th
Streets,
Percentages,
2012 .................. 17
Figure
18:
Bicycle
Parking
between
6th
and
7th
Streets,
Percentages,
2013.................. 17
Figure
19:
Bicycle
Parking
between
6th
and
7th,
Counts
2012.........................................18
Figure
20:
Bicycle
Parking
between
6th
and
7th
Streets,
Counts
2013 ...........................18
BACKGROUND
In
November
2011,
LADOT
installed
Los
Angeles
first
green
Class-II
bicycle
lane
on
Spring
Street
between
Cesar
Chavez
Avenue
and
9th
Street.
The
Downtown
Los
Angeles
Neighborhood
Councils
Complete
Streets
Working
Group
and
the
LACBC,
in
coordination
with
LADOT,
partnered
with
Councilmembers
Perry
(District
9)
and
Huizar
(District
14)
to
implement
this
landmark
infrastructure
(Figure
1).
In
April
2011
the
FHWA
issued
an
interim
approval
for
the
use
of
green
colored
pavement
as
a
traffic
control
device
in
response
to
multiple
inquiries
by
traffic
agencies
across
the
United
States.
1
According
to
the
FHWA,
research
from
various
jurisdictions
show
green
bike
lanes
have
demonstrable
performance
for
increasing
cyclist
safety
including
accurate
bicyclist
positioning
when
traveling
through
intersections
and
conflict
areas.
Bicyclists
are
also
more
likely
to
be
positioned
within
a
green
bike
lane
when
riding.
The
FHWA
found
green
bike
lanes
increase
visibility
and
perceived
safety
of
bicyclists
while
improving
motorist
awareness
of
non-vehicular
road
users.
The
2011
L.A.
Bicycle
Count,
conducted
in
September
2011,
shows
there
has
been
significant
increase
in
the
number
of
people
who
bicycle
in
Los
Angeles.
Additionally,
bicycle
infrastructure
has
a
positive
effect
on
overall
rate
of
bicycle
ridership
with
the
highest
numbers
of
riders
observed
on
streets
with
bicycle
infrastructure.2
The
study
demonstrates
the
preponderance
of
bicycle
infrastructure
in
encouraging
bicycle
ridership.
The
Spring
Street
bike
lane
was
implemented
two
months
after
data
was
gathered
for
the
2011
L.A.
Bicycle
Count.
As
a
result
its
impact
was
not
evaluated
in
LACBCs
final
report.
Information
provided
by
the
2012/2013
Spring
Street
Public
Life
Surveys
augments
existing
bicycle
count
datasets
by
presenting
primary
research
of
cyclist
behavior
on
Spring
Street
subsequent
to
green
bike
lane
implementation.
The
March
2012
Spring
Street
Public
Life
Survey
coordinated
by
Parklet
Studies
with
the
support
of
the
DLANC
Complete
Streets
Working
Group
and
the
USC
School
of
Architecture
recorded
the
volume
of
cyclists
passing
through
Spring
Street
between
4th
and
8th
Streets.
The
2012
Public
Life
Survey
also
recorded
bicycle
parking
along
the
Spring
Street
corridor,
distinguishing
between
bicycles
secured
to
LADOT-installed
bike
racks
(Formal),
or
other
fixtures
such
as
signposts,
fences,
or
parking
meters
(Informal).
One
year
later
in
March
2013,
another
Public
Life
Survey
coordinated
by
Parklet
Studies
with
additional
support
from
the
UCLA
Lewis
Center
again
recorded
the
volume
of
cyclists
and
bicycle
parking
in
the
corridor.
This
report
compares
findings
from
both
the
2012
and
2013
Spring
Street
Public
Life
Surveys.
This
report
is
being
presented
to
the
Los
Angeles
County
Bicycle
Coalition,
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Transportation
Bicycle
Program,
and
the
Downtown
Los
Angeles
Neighborhood
Council.
1
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation
Federal
Highway
Administration,
15
April
2011.
Interim
Approval
for
Optional
Use
of
Green
Colored
Pavement
for
Bike
Lanes
(IA-14).
Manual
on
Uniform
Traffic
Control
Devices.
2
Los
Angeles
County
Bicycle
Coalition,
2011.
L.A.
Bike
Count
2011.
Figure 1: Downtown Bicycle Facilities, Existing and Proposed. This map synthesizes information from the LADOT Bicycle Services online bicycle map; the 2010 Bicycle Plan (Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2010); and the 2011 L.A. Bike Count (Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition 2011).
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
2012/2013
counts
indicate
a
marked
increase
in
bicycle
ridership
in
the
Spring
Street
corridor
during
the
year
subsequent
to
bike
lane
installation.
PEDESTRIAN
to
CYCLIST
RATIOS
While
the
number
of
peak-hour
pedestrians
on
Spring
Street
remained
relatively
constant
between
2012
and
2013,
the
number
of
cyclists
increased
from
320
to
450
(Figure
2).
This
40%
increase
underscores
the
importance
of
Spring
Street
as
a
bicycle
corridor,
and
surpasses
the
32%
overall
increase
measured
by
the
2009/2011
L.A.
Bike
Count
for
seventeen
other
locations
throughout
the
City.3
Figure
1
illustrates
how
a
1/18
cyclist-pedestrian
ratio
shifted
to
1/13
in
2013.
In
general
across
all
peak
hours,
the
ratio
of
cyclists
to
pedestrians
in
the
right-of-way
changed
between
2012
and
2013,
showing
greater
proportions
of
cyclists
(Figures
3
6).
The
greatest
proportion
of
cyclists
(88/564)
was
observed
during
the
11
am
weekend
hour,
while
the
smallest
proportion
during
the
weekend
8am
hour
(8/172,
Figure
6).
CYCLIST
VOLUMES
In
general,
weekday
cyclist
volumes
on
Spring
Street
are
highest
during
morning
peak
hours
and
lowest
during
the
midafternoon
(Figures
7
and
8).
Weekends
see
an
inverse
pattern,
with
cyclist
activity
peaking
at
the
midday.
Both
weekday
and
weekend
days
saw
dramatic
increases
in
bicycle
ridership
on
Spring
Street,
with
changes
exceeding
one
hundred
percent.
Whereas
in
2012,
total
ridership
between
the
weekday
and
weekend
day
was
fairly
balanced
(156/164),
in
2013
the
weekend
day
saw
a
significantly
greater
proportion
of
cyclists
(300/452).
Cyclist
volumes
increased
dramatically
between
March
2012
and
March
2013
(Figures
8
and
9).
Five
out
of
six
peak
hour
periods
saw
increases
ranging
from
7%
to
122%.
Weekday
mornings
saw
the
largest
increase,
up
122%
(from
an
average
of
eighteen
to
forty
cyclists)
in
the
8am
hour;
followed
by
an
increase
of
100%
(from
an
average
of
twenty-two
to
forty-four
cyclists)
in
the
9am
weekday
hour.
Weekends
also
see
significant
jumps;
for
example
100%
during
the
9am
hour
(twenty-eight
to
fifty-six
riders)
and
82%
in
the
1pm
hour
(forty-four
to
eighty
riders).
BICYCLING
BEHAVIOR
A
significant
proportion
of
cyclists
on
Spring
Street
were
observed
traveling
the
wrong
way
(Figure
11),
or
northbound
against
traffic
(as
Spring
Street
is
a
one-way
street).
This
percentage
is
significantly
higher
than
the
four-percent
citywide
figure
captured
by
the
2011
L.A.
Bike
Count.4
3 4
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, Page 24 Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, Page 26 6 Parklet Studies for LACBC and LADOT, April 2012
BICYCLING BEHAVIOR (contd) A small minority (approximately 5 7%) of cyclists were observed travelling in other traffic lanes besides the bike lane itself. Twenty-seven to twenty-eight percent of cyclists were observed riding on Spring Street sidewalks, which roughly concurs with the same behavior recorded by the 2011 L.A. Bike Count in other locations throughout the City. Helmet use of cyclists on Spring Street is somewhat lower than documented levels elsewhere in the City. The 2011 L.A. Bike Count saw forty-seven percent helmet usage by cyclists, whereas on Spring Street, only thirty-five percent of cyclists were observed using a helmet. CYCLIST GENDER Of all cyclists observed on Spring Street during the March 2013 counts, approximately fourteen percent appeared to be female (Figure 12). This falls below the citywide percentage of fifteen percent recorded in the 2011 L.A. Bike Count; and even further behind the 2009 L.A. Bike Count.5 The highest proportion of female cyclists on Spring Street was observed during the weekend midday peak, accounting for approximately thirty-six percent of riders (32/89) in the eleven oclock hour. The next largest proportion was observed during the weekend midday peak, at approximately twenty percent (16/80, Figure 14). BICYCLE PARKING Bicycle parking was systematically counted on Spring Street sidewalks between 4th and 8th Streets during peak weekday and weekend hours in March 2012. These counts reveal that forty percent of bicycles parked in the right-of-way are secured to fixtures other than LADOT- installed bicycle racks. These fixtures include signposts, parking meters, fences, and other elements in the streetscape. In March 2013, bike parking was counted only on the sidewalks between 6th and 7th streets. Overall, the documentation shows how this particular block is highly impacted in terms of bicycle parking, with higher percentages of Informal occurrences than in the rest of the corridor (compare Figures 17 and 18 with Figure 15). Although the Informal proportion of parked bikes decreased in 2013 (Figures 17 and 18), raw counts (Figures 19 and 20) show a much higher number of bicycles parked on the block. This greater number of Informal occurrences in 2013 demonstrate the escalating demand for bicycle parking in the corridor.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, page 25. 7 Parklet Studies for LACBC and LADOT, April 2012
Figure 2: Cyclist and Pedestrian Totals, Peak Hours 2012 and 2013
In
general
across
all
peak
hours,
the
ratio
of
cyclists
to
pedestrians
in
the
right-of-way
changed
between
2012
and
2013,
showing
greater
proportions
of
cyclists
(Figures
3
6).
The
greatest
proportion
of
cyclists
(88/564)
was
observed
during
the
11
am
weekend
hour,
while
the
smallest
proportion
during
the
weekend
8am
hour
(8/172,
Figure
6).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, Page 24 8 Parklet Studies for LACBC and LADOT, April 2012
10
CYCLIST
VOLUMES
In
general,
weekday
cyclist
volumes
on
Spring
Street
are
highest
during
morning
peak
hours
and
lowest
during
the
midafternoon
(Figures
7
and
8).
Weekends
see
an
inverse
pattern,
with
cyclist
activity
peaking
at
the
midday.
Both
weekday
and
weekend
days
saw
dramatic
increases
in
bicycle
ridership
on
Spring
Street,
with
changes
exceeding
one
hundred
percent.
Whereas
in
2012,
total
ridership
between
the
weekday
and
weekend
day
was
fairly
balanced
(156/164),
in
2013
the
weekend
day
saw
a
significantly
greater
proportion
of
cyclists
(300/452).
Figure
10:
Percent
Change,
Weekend
Peak
Hour
Cyclist
Volumes
2012/2013
12
BICYCLING
BEHAVIOR
A
significant
proportion
of
cyclists
on
Spring
Street
were
observed
traveling
the
wrong
way
(Figure
11),
or
northbound
against
traffic
(as
Spring
Street
is
a
one-way
street).
This
percentage
is
significantly
higher
than
the
four-percent
citywide
figure
captured
by
the
2011
L.A.
Bike
Count.7
A
small
minority
(approximately
5
7%)
of
cyclists
were
observed
travelling
in
other
traffic
lanes
besides
the
bike
lane
itself.
Twenty-seven
to
twenty-eight
percent
of
cyclists
were
observed
riding
on
Spring
Street
sidewalks,
which
roughly
concurs
with
the
same
behavior
recorded
by
the
2011
L.A.
Bike
Count
in
other
locations
throughout
the
City.
Helmet
use
of
cyclists
on
Spring
Street
is
somewhat
lower
than
documented
levels
elsewhere
in
the
City.
The
2011
L.A.
Bike
Count
saw
forty-seven
percent
helmet
usage
by
cyclists,
whereas
on
Spring
Street,
only
thirty-five
percent
of
cyclists
were
observed
using
a
helmet.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, Page 26 13 Parklet Studies for LACBC and LADOT, April 2012
CYCLIST
GENDER
Of
all
cyclists
observed
on
Spring
Street
during
the
March
2013
counts,
approximately
fourteen
percent
appeared
to
be
female
(Figure
12).
This
falls
below
the
citywide
percentage
of
fifteen
percent
recorded
in
the
2011
L.A.
Bike
Count;
and
even
further
behind
the
2009
L.A.
Bike
Count.8
The highest proportion of female cyclists on Spring Street was observed during the weekend midday peak, accounting for approximately thirty-six percent of riders (32/89) in the eleven oclock hour. The next largest proportion was observed during the weekend midday peak, at approximately twenty percent (16/80, Figure 14).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, 2011. L.A. Bike Count 2011, page 25. 14 Parklet Studies for LACBC and LADOT, April 2012
15
BIYCLE
PARKING
Bicycle
parking
was
systematically
counted
on
Spring
Street
sidewalks
between
4th
and
8th
Streets
during
peak
weekday
and
weekend
hours
in
March
2012.
These
counts
reveal
that
forty
percent
of
bicycles
parked
in
the
right-of-way
are
secured
to
fixtures
other
than
LADOT- installed
bicycle
racks.
These
fixtures
include
signposts,
parking
meters,
fences,
and
other
elements
in
the
streetscape.
In March 2013, bike parking was counted only on the sidewalks between 6th and 7th streets. Overall, the documentation shows how this particular block is highly impacted in terms of bicycle parking, with higher percentages of Informal occurrences than in the rest of the corridor (compare Figures 17 and 18 with Figure 15).
Figure 17: Bicycle Parking on Spring Street between 6th and 7th Streets, Formal and Informal Percentages, 2012
Figure 18: Bicycle Parking on Spring Street between 6th and 7th Streets, Formal and Informal Percentages, 2013
17
Although the Informal proportion of parked bikes decreased in 2013 (Figures 17 and 18), raw counts (Figures 19 and 20) show a much higher number of bicycles parked on the block. This greater number of Informal occurrences in 2013 demonstrate the escalating demand for bicycle parking in the corridor.
Figure 19: Bicycle Parking on Spring Street between 6th and 7th, Formal and Informal Counts, 2012
Figure 20: Bicycle Parking on Spring Street between 6th and 7th, Formal and Informal Counts, 2013
18
METHODOLOGICAL
SUMMARY
Screenline
Counts
were
conducted
on
the
600
block
of
Spring
Street
(between
6th
and
7th
Streets)
in
March
2012
and
March
2013
(Figure
1).
Counts
were
conducted
on
two
weekdays
and
one
weekend
day.
In
March
2012,
counts
were
conducted
on
Tuesday
the
6th,
Wednesday
the
7th,
and
Saturday
the
10th.
In
March
2013,
counts
were
conducted
on
Sunday
the
24th,
Tuesday
the
25th,
and
Wednesday
the
26th.
For
each
year,
the
two
raw
weekday
counts
were
averaged
to
arrive
at
a
single
weekday
figure.
The
2012
counts
were
conducted
during
peak
hours:
8am,
9am;
12pm,
2pm;
5pm,
and
6pm
(six
hours
total).
The
2013
counts
were
conducted
at
the
top
of
each
hour
between
8am
and
7pm
(eleven
hours
total).
Fifteen-minute
count
intervals
were
conducted
at
the
top
of
each
hour.
A
formula
is
used
to
extrapolate
the
average
hourly
volumes
presented
here.
Unless
otherwise
noted,
all
values
presented
in
this
report
are
average
hourly
volumes
extrapolated
from
the
15-minute
counts.
The
2013
counts
also
recorded
the
Bicycling
Behavior
categories
(whereas
2012
counts
did
not):
Direction
of
Travel
(Southbound:
with
traffic,
or
Northbound:
against-traffic)
In
Bike
Facility
(green
bike
lane)
vs.
Out
of
Bike
Facility
(other
traffic
lane)
On
Sidewalk
Helmet
Usage
Gender
Age
(Under
16
or
Over
65)
Both
the
2012
and
2013
surveys
included
hourly
surveys
of
bicycles
parked
on
Spring
Street
sidewalks.
The
2012
surveys
were
conducted
on
the
corridor
between
4th
and
8th
Streets.
The
2013
surveys
were
conducted
between
6th
and
7th
Streets
only.
19
20