Click for next page ( 21

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 20
21 nies. Of the 30 agencies that reported the name of the com- dotally that different types of people use bicycle-on-bus ser- pany that manufactured their bus bike racks, 28 used the same vices. Young adults, students, and low-income commuters company. Although many different bus bike rack designs were mentioned most often. According to the transit agen- have been developed, agencies with bus fleets that include a cies, people use the bus bike racks for both transportation and variety of makes and models can sometimes have difficulty recreational purposes, although the purposes of the trips equipping certain types of buses with bike racks. depended on the types of destinations served by the agency (e.g., bus systems in resort areas tended to serve more bicy- clists making recreational trips). USAGE PATTERNS AND USER DEMOGRAPHICS Bicycle-on-bus use has increased over time for nearly all The number of bicyclists that use bicycle-on-bus services of the agencies that participated in the survey. Most had varies by agency. Agencies reported serving as few as 20 and anecdotal evidence of these increases, but several agencies as many as 575,600 bicyclists per year (see Table 5). In gen- had collected historical data to describe how many bicyclists eral, higher numbers of bicycle users were recorded by com- used the service at different times (for examples see Table 6). munities with larger transit systems, in communities in which bus bike racks are provided on all (or large percentages) of One of the most commonly cited challenges for bicycle-on- their buses, and in areas with warm climates. bus programs was limitations on capacity. Several agencies reported having to turn away bicyclists because the racks Although most agencies do not use surveys to collect data were full, especially during peak travel times [Ann Arbor about bicycle users, several transit agencies reported anec- (Michigan) Transportation Authority, Broward County Tran- sit (Florida), Calgary Transit, Clallam Transit System (Port TABLE 5 Angeles, Washington), Regional Transportation District (RTD, BIKE-ON-BUS RIDERSHIP LEVELS FROM SELECTED TRANSIT AGENCIES Denver, Colorado), Kelowna Regional Transit System (British Columbia), San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, Space No. of Bicycle Trips Transit Agency (Location) Served Annually Coast Area Transit (Cocoa, Florida), Whistler & Valley San Diego Metropolitan Transit System 575,600 Express (Whistler, British Columbia)]. (San Diego, CA) Broward County Transit 380,025 (Pompano Beach, FL) REACTIONS TO SERVICE FROM DIFFERENT Long Beach Transit 100,000 GROUPS (Long Beach, CA) Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 93,000 (HARTline) (Tampa, FL) Transit agencies were asked to discuss bicyclists' responses Kelowna Regional Transit System 75,000 to their bike-on-bus programs. Nearly all of the agencies (30 (Kelowna, British Columbia) of 32) reported that bicyclists had given positive feedback Space Coast Area Transit 50,000 about the service. Most agencies also reported anecdotally (Cocoa, FL) that regular transit users, transit agency staff, and the general Springs Transit 42,700 (Colorado Springs, CO) public had positive reactions to bicycle-on-bus services, Kamloops Transit System 35,000 although there were a few more neutral reactions to the ser- (Kamloops, British Columbia) vice from these groups. Clallam Transit System 25,000 (Port Angeles, WA) Regional Transportation District (RTD) 545,000* The reactions of bus drivers to bike-on-bus service were (Denver, CO) mixed (12 agencies reported positive, 16 reported neutral, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit 18,000 and 3 reported negative reactions). Bus driver concerns (Ithaca, NY) included: Grand Valley Transit 16,800 (Grand Junction, CO) Whistler & Valley Express 16,000 Safety (additional risk of running into parked cars, (Whistler, British Columbia) pedestrians, and other objects with bicycle racks on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority 13,094 (Ann Arbor, MI) front of buses), Mountain Express 7,027 Personal liability for damage to bicycles, (Crested Butte, CO) Losing time and not being able to keep a strict route Central Ohio Transit Authority 6,500 schedule, and (Columbus, OH) Penticton Transit System 3,000 Additional work with no additional pay (having to watch (Penticton, British Columbia) bicycles or provide assistance to bicyclists, etc.). Calgary Transit 500 (Calgary, Alberta) AMTRAN Fewer than 20 Bus drivers and some bus driver unions raised initial objec- (Altoona, PA) tions to accommodating bicycles, but these groups generally *Does not include weekends. became more supportive of the service when they learned