About the Site Email Newsletter Links to Cycling Organisations
Bicycle and Public Transport Bicycle Network Planning Bicycle Strategies & Plans Bike Share Programs Cycling Data End of Trip Facilities Facility Design / Engineering Land Use Planning Mobility Management
Cycling Skills: Information for Riders Cycling Skills: Programs and Resources Organisations Professional Development Research
Awards and Recognition Behaviour Change Programs Economic Benefits of Cycling Environmental Benefits of Cycling Health Benefits of Cycling Maps Marketing Ride to School Ride to Shops Ride to Work Social Benefits of Cycling Women in Cycling
Bicycle Regulations Overviews Solutions Statistics & Common Crashes
Cycle Tourism: Promotion Cycle Tourism: Strategies Organisations Recreation: BMX Facilities Recreation: Off Road Facilities and Trails Recreation: Publications and Resources Recreation: Strategies Recreation: Trail and Facility Design Research
International Local Government National Government State & Territory Government
Cycling Innovations Encouragement & Promotion Enforcement & Road Safety Engineering & Planning Funding

Search

Font Decrease Font Normal Font Increase Print

Automated Bicycle Counts: Lessons from Boulder, Colorado (USA)

This research paper, published in 2011, examines the accuracy of automated bicycle counters. This study focuses on bicycle counts collected by the City of Boulder, Colorado, since 1998, on multiuse paths with inductive loop detectors. This study found that inductive loop detectors can provide accurate measures of bicycle use on a pathway, but only when detectors are properly installed, calibrated, maintained, and free of external interference.

Quantifying bicycle use is fundamental to understanding bicycle travel. Methods of counting bicycles vary from limited-time, manual counts to permanent overhead imaging sensors. One common permanent counting method uses inductive loops embedded in the pavement to count cyclists on paths. Although inductive loop detectors have been found to be a highly accurate method of counting bicycles under ideal test conditions, their accuracy after years of use has not been systematically studied. 

To estimate the accuracy of the devices in use, two individuals manually counted path users at six locations. On average, the loop detectors counted 4% fewer bicycles than the manual counters at the same locations.Of the 22 detector channels with sufficient counts to judge their accuracy, roughly 68% were considered accurate. The most dramatic inaccuracies were caused primarily by detector settings and software-related problems. 

The research was published in the TRB’s Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2190 which contained six papers that explore the influence of the built environment on route selection for bicycle and car travel; automated bicycle counts; multimodal travel choices of bicyclists; effects of gender on commuter cycling and accident rates; on-street bicycle facility configuration effects on bicyclist and motorist behavior; and parking lane width effect on bicycle operating space.

Read More