National Academies Press: OpenBook

Integration of Bicycles and Transit (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS Many transit agencies currently provide bicycle-related ser- vices. The 2002 National Transit Database includes 548 agen- cies in the United States with service area populations of more than 20,000 (23). According to the survey conducted for this report and Bikemap.com (21), at least 101 U.S. tran- sit agencies offer bicycle-on-bus or bicycle-on-rail services. An even larger number of agencies provide bicycle parking at transit stops and stations. The 56 transit agencies that participated in the on-line sur- vey offered many types of bicycle services, including bicycle racks on the front of buses (Figure 3), bicycle racks in rail cars, bicycle-on-vanpool vehicles, bicycle storage space on ferries, and bicycle racks and lockers at stations. The general cate- gories of bicycle and transit integration are described here. Bicycle on Bus Bicycles are accommodated on buses in several different ways. The method used by most transit agencies is to mount a bicycle rack on the front of the bus. Front-mounted racks commonly carry two bicycles; however, more agencies are experimenting with racks that can hold three to five bicycles. Customers are responsible for loading and securing their bikes on the racks, and the racks can be folded up against the front of the bus when they are not in use. Some local bus services allow passengers to bring their bicycles on board. However, this method of bicycle accom- modation is often restricted to prevent crowding. Bus drivers are typically given the authority to decide when to allow bicycles on the bus, which tends to be when available bus bike racks are full, after dark, or when bus service is infre- quent (bicycles are often allowed on board if the bus is the last bus on the route or if there will be a long wait before the next bus). Some commuter buses are equipped with extra storage space for luggage and other packages. Several agencies that responded to the survey allow bicycles to be stored in this space, typically located in a compartment below the floor of the bus. Bicycle on Rail A number of light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail systems accommodate bicycles by allowing them inside train cars. One method of accommodation is to require bicyclists to board designated rail cars and remain with their bikes in des- ignated areas. Agencies reported that between 2 and 16 bicy- cles could be accommodated per train in this manner, depend- ing on restrictions. Some rail cars have special bike racks or hooks where bicyclists can store their bikes (see Figure 4). One responding transit agency provides a designated bicycle car with space for 17 bicycles in each train set (see the case study on the San Joaquin Regional Rail System in chapter four). It is common for transit agencies to prohibit bicycle access on train cars during peak travel times. This is done to reduce congestion on the train and to reduce friction in boarding and exiting the train. An independent analysis of 47 transit agen- cies found that only a few urban rail systems in the United States prohibit bicycles at all times (22). The same analysis showed a nearly even divide between agencies that restrict bicycle access during peak hours and those that allow bicy- cles at all times. There are no time restrictions on bicycle access for • Five of 13 (38%) heavy rail systems, • Ten of 21 (48%) light rail systems, and • Seven of 16 (44%) commuter rail systems. Bicycle on Ferry, Vanpool, and Taxi Although bicycle-on-bus and bicycle-on-rail services are offered by many public transit agencies, other types of bicy- cle and transit integration include bicycle-on-ferry, bicycle- on-vanpool, bicycle-on-bus services in mountain communi- ties, and accommodating bicycles along with on-demand transit services. Bicycle Parking and Staffed Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking includes bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, and staffed bicycle parking facilities (also referred to as bike sta- tions). These facilities help organize where bicycles are parked, reducing the clutter of bikes that are locked beside fences, trees, signs, etc. Bicycle parking is often installed at train sta- CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

12 tions, park-and-ride lots, bus terminals, local bus stops, and other transit hubs. Lockers are designed to provide more secure bike storage. They tend to be used to store bikes overnight or during the daytime. Lockers are usually installed at major transit hubs. Racks take up less space and tend to allow easier access to parked bicycles (bicyclists typically use their own lock at bike racks, whereas bicyclists are often required to rent a key to access a bike locker). Racks are usually provided at many locations throughout a transit system. One agency reports that bike racks can be easier for station attendants to watch over than bike lockers. Staffed bicycle parking facilities offer convenient ser- vices to bicyclists, such as bicycle parking, repairs, rentals, restroom and changing facilities, and car sharing services. These facilities are often located at interfaces with major transit hubs so that bicyclists and transit users can easily move between modes. PURPOSES OF BICYCLE AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS Although the transit agencies that provided information for this report offered a wide range of services, many agencies cited similar reasons for providing bicycle services. One of the primary reasons transit agencies chose to integrate bicy- cles and transit was to increase transit ridership. Agencies felt that their bicycle services could increase transit ridership by • Extending the range that customers can travel to reach transit stops and stations, • Increasing the flexibility that passengers have to reach destinations at the end of a transit trip, • Providing “seamless” transportation between bicycle and transit modes, and • Offering an additional amenity to customers that increases the attractiveness of transit. Transit agencies also suggested many other reasons for providing bicycle-related services including: • Increasing the number of multimodal trips made in a community; • Removing motor vehicles from roads and parking lots so that space can be used by others; • Enhancing the quality of life in the community by reduc- ing air pollution and automobile traffic congestion; • Increasing the visibility of bicycling as a viable trans- portation option; • Improving the public image of transit to generate allies in the bicycling community who support additional tran- sit funding; • Contributing to regional commuter assistance programs; • Providing an alternative for bicyclists so that they can bypass areas that are barriers to bicycling, such as bridges, FIGURE 3 Bicycle rack on the front of a bus—Winston–Salem Transit Authority. (Source: Toole Design Group.) FIGURE 4 Special rail car bike rack—Twin Cities Metro Transit. (Source: Michael Jackson, Maryland DOT.)

13 tunnels, steep hills, roads with traffic, and avoid riding at night or during adverse weather conditions (see Fig- ure 5); and • Providing public infrastructure to support active living and prevent health problems related to a lack of physi- cal activity. LOCAL DIFFERENCES IN BICYCLE AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION Although the bicycle services described in this report are classified into distinct categories with similar characteris- tics, each bicycle and transit service is designed to meet the unique needs of the transit system and the community. A par- ticular program or set of bicycle services may be successful for one agency, but may not be successful for a community with different characteristics. Factors that can influence the type of service provided include: • Transit ridership characteristics (headways, peak user volumes, overcrowding, etc.), • Climate, • Design of transit vehicles and transit access areas, • Local land use patterns, • Bicycle access to transit; the quality and connectivity of bicycle facilities in the community, • Socioeconomic characteristics of the local population, • Influence of advocacy groups, • Transit funding, • Authority of the transit agency to make policy deci- sions, and • Political leadership. COMMON ASPECTS OF BICYCLE AND TRANSIT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS Although there are a variety of types of bicycle and transit inte- gration, most of these services have several issues in common, including developing initial support, obtaining funding, mar- keting, establishing policies, and monitoring performance. Each of these issues is addressed in this section of the report. Developing Initial Support Support for integrating bicycles with transit service can come from several different groups. Bicycle advocacy groups com- monly lead the support for transit agencies to establish bicy- cle services. Other groups that have helped support bicycle and transit programs include: • State and local governments, • Elected officials, • Environmental groups, • Health promotion groups, • Students, • Businesses and advertising agencies, and • Staff within transit agencies Funding Agencies have found a variety of ways to fund the equipment, maintenance, and staff support for bicycle services. Other major players in funding bicycle-related transit improvements are state DOTs, regional agencies, and local jurisdictions. Some agencies that responded to the survey covered the ini- tial capital cost of their bicycle services exclusively with state and federal funds, whereas others combined their own funds with state and federal grants. Most agencies (including all of the Canadian agencies) however covered the entire cost within their own budgets. It was even more likely for the agencies to cover the costs of maintenance on their own. In addition to fares and transit agency operating budgets, local sources of funding include property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, and business and individual donors. State sources include funding from state DOTs and other state matching grants. Federal sources included FTA Section 5307 and Sec- tion 5309 Formula Funds, the CMAQ program, and Surface Transportation Program Enhancement Funds. Several respondents to the survey noted that they would like to provide additional services, but did not have adequate funding to do so. FIGURE 5 Bicycle-related services provide bicyclists with means to bypass barriers to bicycling, in this case a bridge— New Jersey Transit. (Source: Michael Rosenthal.)

Marketing Marketing increases public awareness about bicycle and tran- sit services. Thirty-two of the 56 responding transit agencies used some type of marketing program (see Figure 6). Mar- keting programs offered by these agencies included one or more of the following marketing techniques: • Brochures; • Transit agency websites; • State or regional websites providing links to local tran- sit agency bicycle service information; • Information in riders’ guides and other standard transit publications; • Posters (on buses and trains, at stations and stops, and in other public places); • Newspaper and magazine advertisements; • Demonstrations of how to load bus bike racks at public events; • Promotion of bicycle services in informational videos and advertisements; and • Kickoff events with free fares, water bottles, etc. There was a significant range in the cost of marketing pro- grams used by transit agencies. Some agencies used only staff time to implement their marketing efforts. Others spent up to $50,000 marketing their bicycle services. Most agen- cies reported that the time and money spent on marketing efforts helped increase the awareness and use of the services. Agencies however were not as satisfied with the effective- ness of marketing programs for bike parking. One agency reported that this advertising was only somewhat effective because it only reached existing transit users, not bicyclists who were potential users. Some agencies have taken advantage of partnerships with other government agencies and the private sector to advertise their bicycle and transit programs. For example, some local bicycle advocacy groups have posted information about the bicycle services on their websites (British Columbia Transit), and there are several examples of transit agencies that have offered advertising space to local businesses on bike racks in return for funding assistance (Penticton Transit, British Columbia Transit). Representatives of a mayor’s bicycling education program staged demonstrations of bike-on-bus racks at many events to provide hands-on training to poten- tial bicyclists [Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)]. Establishing Policies Agencies commonly set policies to restrict the types of bicy- cles, ages of bicyclists, and time periods that bicycle services are provided. In some agencies, these policies are approved at the highest levels within the agency, although in other agen- cies, mid-level staff create and approve the policies. Some agencies have established policies for their bicycle services and have posted them online (see Appendix A). 14 Monitoring Performance Performance of bike-on-transit programs has been assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative assessments of a bicycle service can be based on input from transit agency staff (e.g., bus drivers, train station managers, transit plan- ners), transit customers, and the community as a whole. Although qualitative feedback can be gathered through sur- veys and interviews, it is often received informally from bicycle and transit advocates in the community. Responses from the 56 transit agencies showed that most had a qualitative understanding of how different groups felt about their bicycle services. Bicyclists as a whole were very satisfied with any bicycle and transit integration services that were being offered. Transit users were either neutral or pos- itive about accommodating bicycles, regardless of the type of bicycle and transit integration. Quantitative measurements include counts of bicyclists on buses, trains, or ferries; counts of bikes parked at transit stations; inventories of bicycle parking spaces; and surveys of bicyclists on the transit system. Counts of riders and parked bicycles are often taken manually by bus drivers or transit agency staff. In one example, the Central Ohio Tran- sit Authority (COTA) has established an automated system for counting the number of bicyclists using its bike-on-bus service (see the case study later in this chapter). In addition, a California transit agency has developed a bicycle counter as a part of its bus bicycle racks. Sensors in the two bike tire slots count each bicycle that is placed on the rack. Surveys have been used less frequently than counts because of the additional time required to develop and administer them. Many of the agencies that participated in this study were interested in collecting additional data about their bicycle- on-transit users, in particular, agencies that did not know how many bicyclists used their services. Agencies reported that they would like to collect the following types of data, if the resources were available: • Counts of bicyclists using transit services at different times of day (peak vs. off-peak), • Counts of bicyclists who are turned away because of inadequate capacity, • Bicycle transit user origin and destination surveys, • Socioeconomic characteristics of customers using bicy- cle services (income, automobile ownership, etc.), • Purposes of bicycle-on-transit trips, • Time of day bicycle-on-transit trips are taken, and • How a bike-on-transit customer would reach his or her destination if the bicycle service was not provided. None of the agencies that were surveyed had established per- formance measures to evaluate the quality of bicycle services that they provide.

15 FIGURE 6 Chicago Transit Authority bike-on-transit marketing program.

16 Monitoring Bike-on-Bus Boardings Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)—Columbus, Ohio COTA added front-mounted bike racks to its entire fleet of 275 buses in September 2004. Using existing advanced mobile data ter- minals (AMDTs) previously installed on the buses (see Figure 7), the AMDT touch pads were programmed so that drivers could document each bicycle boarding. Once a passenger boarding the bus deploys FIGURE 7 Advanced mobile data terminal—Central Ohio Transit Authority. FIGURE 8 Bike boarding report provides data on bike-on-bus boardings from agency intranet—Central Ohio Transit Authority. Transit Agency (Location) Involvement with Bicycle Access Improvements Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) (Washington, DC) Construction of a new rail station included providing part of a major new shared-use path facility. In addition, WMATA has provided bicycle lockers at many Metrorail stations. Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Pedestrian/bicycle bridges are to be built as a part of two upcoming projects. These bridges will provide pedestrian/bicycle access to stations from surrounding communities and from some bike and multi-use trails. Additionally, RTD has invested jointly in a series of bridges that will improve access to and from Denver Union Station and neighborhoods northwest of Denver. Fort Smith Transit (Fort Smith, AR) Established two goals related to bicycle access to transit: (1) work jointly with the city's Engineering Department to construct sidewalks in areas that restrict access to transit shelters; (2) unite efforts with the Parks Department to locate transit shelters and bike parking at trailheads where bike routes and transit routes intersect. Kelowna Regional Transit System (Kelowna, British Columbia) The city of Kelowna, which is a partner in providing the transit service, has an extensive network of bike lanes and bike routes. New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Coordinates station improvements with local development where possible. It also provides bike and pedestrian access through multi-agency programs like New Jersey's ìTransit Villa ge” program. Ride Glenwood Springs (Glenwood Springs, CO) Completed a bus stop access plan that includes bike and pedestrian access/facilities at transit stops. Town of Vail (Vail, CO) Spent more than $5 million in the last 15 years to build bike paths. The town also operates the transit system. TransLink (Greater Vancouver, British Columbia) Funded development of bike routes that connect to transit facilities (bus routes, light rail stations, commuter rail stations, and ferry terminals). Brownsville Urban System (Brownsville, TX) Participated in the local MPO hike and bike plan to incorporate transit connections. Will be constructing a bus transfer station on a planned hike and bike trail. Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, IL) Periodically collaborated with Chicago DOT on access issues. TABLE 2 EXAMPLE OF AGENCIES IMPROVING BICYCLE ACCESS TO TRANSIT FACILITIES a bike rack for loading, the driver simply touches the AMDT on-screen prompts necessary to record a bike boarding. The AMDT allows the transit agency to monitor bike on bus use on each route and identify trends in bike on bus use over time. The touch pads are also coordi- nated with COTA’s wireless automated vehicle locator system, which keeps track of the locations of all buses throughout the central Ohio area. Coordinating the touch pads with the automated vehicle locator system makes it possible for analysts to download data about the loca- tions of bike on bus boardings from the agency intranet, including the specific bus, time of day, date, and closest intersection to where the bike was placed in the bus rack (see Figure 8). COTA’s bike-on-bus program has been well-received by the pub- lic, as shown by positive customer e-mails and media coverage. Infor- mation from the touch pads was used to calculate total boardings over a one-week period when free fares were given to bicyclists who used the bus. More detailed bicycle boarding data from the automated mon- itoring system are available on request. However, no formal data have been prepared for the general public because the program has been

17 common issues that transit agencies address when implement- ing bicycle programs, including funding, marketing, estab- lishing policies, and monitoring performance. The following chapters will provide more in-depth information about bicy- cle on bus, bicycle on rail, bicycle on other types of transit, and bicycle parking services. in operation for less than one year, and COTA is continuing to train drivers to record bike boardings by means of the AMDTs. Some bus operators raised initial concerns about the extra task of keying in each bicycle boarding. However, operator training sessions include instruction about using the touch pads, and operators are reported to be using them fairly consistently. A potential improvement to the bicycle-on-bus monitoring system could be to record each time a bicyclist takes their bicycle off the bus, but this would add com- plexity to the task of monitoring bicyclists. BICYCLE ACCESS TO TRANSIT The comfort and safety of bicycle facilities at transit stops and stations is an important aspect of integrating bicycles and pub- lic transportation. In many jurisdictions, the transit agency has limited control over conditions on streets and roadways sur- rounding transit stops and stations and must work with other governmental agencies to make improvements. Nine of the 56 participating agencies reported that they had established part- nerships with other agencies to plan and make improvements to bicycle facilities in areas surrounding transit stations (see Table 2). These types of partnerships have the potential to improve bicycle access to transit services (see Figure 9). Directing bicyclists to transit stops and stations is another component of transit access. Several agencies in Maryland have developed successful partnerships with local jurisdictions to improve wayfinding signage to transit stations and bike parking at the stations. King County Metro (Seattle, Washing- ton) and the California DOT (Caltrans) have identified bike sta- tion locations on their transit system maps, and Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles MTA) plans to show the local bikeway network on its new transit maps. SUMMARY This chapter provided general descriptions of different types of bicycle and transit integration. It also summarized several FIGURE 9 Shared-use path adjacent to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail station. (Source: Toole Design Group.)

Next: Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services »
Integration of Bicycles and Transit Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 62: Integration of Bicycles and Transit examines how transit agencies may improve their existing services and assist other communities in developing new bicycle and transit services. Synthesis 62 updates TCRP Synthesis 4: Integration of Bicycles and Transit (1994).

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!