National Academies Press: OpenBook

Integration of Bicycles and Transit (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services

« Previous: Chapter Two - Summary of Existing Programs
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Integration of Bicycles with Bus Transit Services." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13554.
×
Page 23

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.

18 Bicycle-on-bus service provides bicyclists with several ben- efits, including the convenience of riding a bicycle to a bus stop and to the final destination and the flexibility to take the bus in bad weather, after dark, or if a bicyclist needs to travel through an area with steep hills, heavy traffic, or other areas that are barriers to bicycling (e.g., for people who bicycle to and from work). Although these benefits are similar to the benefits of bike- on-rail services, bus systems typically have more routes, serve more neighborhoods, and provide access to more destinations. Because most buses use exterior-mounted racks, there is no impact on bus passenger capacity. In addition, less effort is usually required to place a bike on a bus bike rack. Although a bike can be loaded on a bus immediately at a bus stop, trains are accessed from a platform, which often requires the bicy- clist to carry the bike up or down a staircase, escalator, or ele- vator and through some type of turnstile. Bicycle-on-bus service is offered by transit agencies of all sizes, located in all parts of the United States and Canada (see Table 3). The majority of the agencies that participated in this study offered some type of bicycle access on their local bus systems. In contrast to 10 years ago, very few agencies require training or fees to use their bike-on-bus services. BICYCLE STORAGE AND TRANSPORT Agencies offering bicycle-on-bus service commonly allow bicyclists to store their bikes on racks mounted on the front of the bus. These front-mounted bus bike racks often have room for two bicycles, although three-, four-, and five-bicycle racks have also been used by several agencies (see Figure 10). The bike rack folds upright on the front of the bus when it is not in use. When bicyclists load their bikes, they pull the rack down so that it is parallel to the ground and secure the bike on the rack before boarding the bus. Although folding racks help reduce the overhang distance added to the bus (com- pared with racks that do not have the flexibility to fold), the folded racks typically add 6 to 9 in. of length to the bus, which requires additional storage space at the bus yard. Three-bike bus racks are becoming more common because they provide additional capacity for bicyclists (see the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority case study in this chapter). How- ever, these racks tend to extend the bus overhang distance more than two-bike bus racks, which adds to the swept area of the bus. In addition, the three-bike bus racks generally have less space between the front of the bus and the closest bike on the rack, which can cause interference with wind- shield wipers. They also tend to be wider than two-bike bus racks, which may interfere with headlights and turn signal lights on certain types of buses. Most agencies prefer front-mounted bus bike racks over rear-mounted racks. In 1976, San Diego Transit installed bike racks on the back of 18 buses and found several problems with this configuration. Rear-mounted racks blocked access to the engine at the back of the bus, making it difficult to ser- vice the engine. The rear-mounted racks also caused problems because drivers could not see the racks and monitor the safety and security of bicyclists as they loaded and unloaded their bikes (6). Some agencies also experienced problems with bikes being dirtied by exhaust from the back of the bus. Rear- mounted racks with a capacity of five bikes are currently being used by Mountain Express, a small agency (17 buses) in Crested Butte, Colorado, to provide extra capacity during summer months. These buses have a video camera that shows the driver the back of the bus. Mountain Express provides front-mounted bike racks year-round. Some transit agencies allow bicycles to be taken on board the bus. However, many agencies restrict bicycle access in the bus to prevent overcrowding. These agencies often give bus drivers the discretion to decide whether bicycles are allowed inside the bus. Drivers are more likely to allow bicy- cles inside the bus when the racks are full, at night, or when service is infrequent (when the bus is the last bus of the evening on a particular route or there is a long wait before the next bus). Bus Bike Racks with Capacity for Three Bicycles Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority—Clearwater, Florida The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) first installed front- mounted bicycle racks on its buses in 1998. Each of these racks pro- vided space for two bicycles. As more bicyclists took advantage of the service, it became more common for both spaces on the bicycle rack to be full, resulting in bicyclists having to wait for the next bus. In 2004, PSTA addressed this capacity problem by mounting racks with space for three bicycles on the front of its buses (see Figure 11). The current bus fleet includes 57 buses with three-bicycle racks and 111 buses with two-bicycle racks. PSTA tries to provide buses with the three-bicycle racks on routes with more bicyclists. CHAPTER THREE INTEGRATION OF BICYCLES WITH BUS TRANSIT SERVICES

19 Type of Service Front-mounted racks that can hold two bicycles AMTRAN (Altoona, PA) Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (Ann Arbor, MI) Brownsville Urban System (Brownsville, TX) Calgary Transit (Calgary, Alberta) Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Orlando, FL) Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, OH) Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, IL) City of Visalia—Visalia City Coach (Visalia, CA) Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Fort Smith Transit (Fort Smith, AR) Grand River Transit (Kitchener, Ontario) Grand Valley Transit (Grand Junction, CO) Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARTline) (Tampa, FL)* Kamloops Transit System (Kamloops, British Columbia) Kelowna Regional Transit System (Kelowna, British Columbia) Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA) Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore, MD) Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles, CA) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) Penticton Transit System (Penticton, British Columbia) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) (Clearwater, FL) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Rochester–Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (Rochester, NY) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego, CA) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, PA) Space Coast Area Transit (Cocoa, FL) Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (Ithaca, NY) TransLink (Greater Vancouver, British Columbia) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet) (Portland, OR) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) Victoria Regional Transit System (Victoria, British Columbia) Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (Washington, DC) Whistler & Valley Express (Whistler, British Columbia)** Front-mounted racks that can hold three bicycles Broward County Transit (Pompano Beach, FL) Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) (Clearwater, FL) Oversized bike racks on the front and back of buses. Each rack carries four or five bikes Mountain Express (Crested Butte, CO) Bikes may be brought on board the bus at any time Grand River Transit (Kitchener, Ontario) Bikes may be brought on board the bus at driver’s discretion and/or under certain conditions Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Kamloops Transit System (Kamloops, British Columbia) Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Space Coast Area Transit (Cocoa, FL) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) *Bicyclists must obtain a permit to use the bus bicycle racks. **Racks are in place from mid-April until mid-November, when they are replaced by ski racks. Transit Agencies (Location) TABLE 3 BICYCLE-ON-BUS SERVICES

20 Many of the new bike racks were filled by three bikes within days of starting the program. The positive impact of the three-bike racks was also demonstrated through the anecdotal evidence of fewer bicyclists being left behind by buses with full bike racks. With the additional capac- ity provided by the new racks, bicycle-on-bus boardings increased by approximately 8% over one year, from 39,862 in 2003 to 43,096 in 2004. Most of the buses were retrofitted with the three-bike racks by PSTA’s maintenance staff. However, the agency was able to pur- chase 10 new buses equipped with three-bike racks. PSTA noted several challenges to operating buses with three-bike racks. These included a bus overhang area that was 10 cm (4 in.) greater than buses with the two-bike racks, and bikes with wide han- dlebars that on some buses interfered with the windshield wipers. The bicycle rack manufacturer helped PSTA overcome interference with the windshield wipers by providing aluminum spacers and bolts that moved the bicycles a few inches farther from the bus. This adjustment required less than 5 min of maintenance work per rack. PSTA noted that the three-bike racks are likely to be the highest-capacity racks that can be provided on its buses, given the practical limits of its system. Several of the responding agencies operate commuter bus systems that allow bicycle access. Although some commuter buses are equipped with the same type of front-mounted bike racks as local buses, several allow bicycles to be stowed in luggage storage areas (see Table 4). Over time, agencies have made adjustments to improve their bicycle-on-bus services. Examples of these changes include: • Providing bus bike racks on additional types of buses and additional routes, • Changing from service in warm months only to year- round service, • Making minor adjustments to the configuration of racks to make them easier for bicyclists to use, • Adding deployment indicator lights so that bus drivers can tell when the rack is down (see the COTA case study in chapter two), • Removing fees or permit requirements for bringing bikes on buses, and • Removing requirements for bike-on-bus training courses. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN Although some transit agencies have manufactured their own bus bicycle racks [e.g., Mountain Express and Grand Valley Transit (Grand Junction, Colorado)], most agencies respond- ing to the survey use racks manufactured by private compa- FIGURE 10 Front-mounted bus bicycle rack. (Source: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority.) FIGURE 11 Front-mounted bus bicycle rack with space for three bikes—Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Type of Service Front-mounted racks that can hold two bicycles Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Orlando, FL) Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, OH) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Front-mounted racks that can hold three bicycles Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Bicycles stowed in luggage/baggage storage areas Alameda–Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) (Oakland, CA) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Transit Agencies (Location) TABLE 4 BICYCLE-ON-COMMUTER BUS SERVICE

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

22 more about it. For example, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARTline, Tampa, Florida) found that drivers were much more accepting of bicycle racks when they learned that the cyclist is required to load his or her own bike and the driver has no role in the loading process. Initially, Grand River Transit bus operators expressed concern that they would take on personal liability for any damage to bicycles caused by using the racks. They also expressed concern about delays to boarding time. The agency helped mitigate these worries with demonstrations that showed how easy the bus bike racks were to use. None of the responding agencies needed to change route schedules to accommodate additional time for bicycle loading and unloading. Small Transit Agency Bicycle-on-Bus Program Fort Smith Transit—Fort Smith, Arkansas Fort Smith Transit serves the city of Fort Smith [population 80,000, area 186 km2 (72 mi2)], which is located near the Arkansas River in western Arkansas. In 2002, the transit agency added bicycle racks to its entire fleet of 17 fixed-route buses for approximately $10,000. According to Fort Smith Transit, the type of rack that they purchased is easy for bicyclists to use, because one bar can lock the wheels of the bike in place (see Figures 12 and 13). According to the agency, the bus bike racks are typically used every day. Agency representatives have not received any complaints about the bus bicycle racks. After Fort Smith Transit installed its bicycle racks, the local parks department created a plan for bicycling routes in the city to further support bicycle transportation. One challenge that Fort Smith Transit faced after first purchas- ing the racks was having the flexibility to switch racks between buses used for fixed-route service (which provides bike racks) and demand-response service (which does not provide bike racks). To solve this problem, the agency’s service department designed and installed a short extension to the bike rack that allowed the task of switching racks to be done in less than 5 min. COSTS Most agencies paid between $500 and $1,000 to equip each bus with a bike rack. This cost varies depending on the model and quantity of racks that were purchased. A majority of the agencies that provided bicycle-on-bus service (25 of 32) retrofitted their buses with racks. The other seven purchased their bike racks along with new buses, which saved them the labor costs of retrofitting the racks. The amount of staff time spent on bicycle-on-transit pro- grams depended on the size of the agency. Although most small- and medium-sized bus systems dedicated between a few hours and one week of staff time per year to keeping the bike-on-bus services operating smoothly, some larger transit agencies used full-time staff to run their bicycle programs. Transit Agency (Location) Year Bike-on-Bus Service Started Description of Changes in Use Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (Ann Arbor, MI) 2002 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARTline) (Tampa, FL) 1995 33.5% increase from FY 2003 to FY 2004. Mountain Express (Crested Butte, CO) 1980s Penticton Transit System (Penticton, British Columbia) 1998 Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) 1992 Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (Ithaca, NY) 1996 Note: Includes agencies that responded with specific numbers. *Weekday, single-day counts. Increased from 11,145 to 13,045 bicyclists (17%) in second year. Bikes increased from 5,400 to 7,000 between 1998 and 2004. Use has increased gradually since the racks were introduced. The system now carries about 10 bikes per day. Summer 2000 (local and limited service) = 1,559 bike boardings. Summer 2004 (local and limited service) = 2,614 boardings. Increase in bike boardings by 68%.* Systemwide use increased from 500 uses a month to 1,500 uses a month during the first three years. TABLE 6 CHANGES IN BIKE-ON-BUS USE OVER TIME FIGURE 12 Front-mounted bus bike rack—Fort Smith Transit.

23 For example, the RTD (Denver) spent time that was equiva- lent to 1.5 full-time employees per year on planning, cus- tomer service, and marketing for all of its bicycle services (including, but not limited to, bicycle on bus). Three transit agencies reported that the cost of bus bike racks, staff time, and/or monitoring the program was an obstacle to providing more bike racks and better service for bicyclists. SAFETY AND SECURITY There have been relatively few safety and security issues related to bicycle-on-bus programs. Most of the transit agen- cies reported no problems. A few agencies reported only minor problems with injuries to passengers, injuries to pedes- trians outside the bus, damage to property on or in the bus, or damage to property in the street. The most common minor problem cited by transit agen- cies was damage to bicycles that had been loaded on the bike racks. Several agencies mentioned that in the early stages of their program, bicycles occasionally fell off of the racks or were stolen from the racks while the bus was on its route. In addition, there have been a few occasions where bicyclists were injured while loading their bicycles, because the bus driver started to move the bus without looking to see if there was a bicyclist loading a bicycle on the rack. To address this problem, the agencies have trained bus drivers to watch the bicycles on the racks more closely and to make sure the bicy- clists load their bicycles properly. It can be also difficult for bus drivers to discern if a bus bike rack is deployed. If an empty rack is left down, the driver may not realize that he or she has limited front clearance. Agencies have solved this problem by adding a deployment indicator light that tells the bus driver when the rack is down [COTA and the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX)]. Abandoned bicycles were cited as a problem by several agencies including the Orange County (California) Trans- portation Authority (OCTA), LYNX, and Long Beach Tran- sit. Such abandoned bicycles may have been stolen and then abandoned or simply forgotten by bicyclists. Bicycles that are left on the bus bike racks take up space that could be used by other bicyclists and require the agency to deal with unclaimed bikes when they return to bus maintenance areas. Hundreds of bikes abandoned on OCTA buses are auctioned off each year. LYNX also has had problems with abandoned bicycles. It relocated its lost-and-found at the main bus ter- minal and removes abandoned bikes at the end of a single route loop. This freed rack space that normally would have been full until buses returned to the maintenance facility at the end of their run. The Long Beach Police Department assisted Long Beach Transit by picking up bikes that remained unclaimed for more than 30 days. Some agencies have raised concerns that front-mounted bike racks add length to the bus, making it more difficult to fit buses in the bus storage yard or garage and more difficult to maneuver around tight corners on downtown streets. Another problem cited by transit providers is that bicycles on the front-mounted racks can block headlights on smaller buses. One agency does not allow bicycles on its smaller buses at night because of this concern (TransLink, Greater Vancouver, British Columbia). RESTRICTIONS AND RULES Although bicycles are typically prohibited inside buses, fewer restrictions have been placed on using bus bike racks. The only common rule is that bicycles must fit in the bike racks. Some agencies prohibit certain categories of bicycles, including recumbents, tandems, tricycles, unicycles, electric bicycles, or bicycles with wheels less than 20 in. in diameter. Bicycles with crates or baskets are sometimes prohibited because those objects can block the driver’s view of the street. A few agencies prohibit children from using bike-on-bus racks, with minimum ages ranging from 9 to 16 years old. Others allow children if they are accompanied by an adult or have parental permission. One agency mentioned that any person can use the service as long as they can load their bicy- cle on the rack themselves. HARTline is the only agency that participated in this study that charges a fee to use their bicycle-on-bus service. Once bicyclists complete a training program on how to use the bus bicycle racks, they are eligible to purchase a bicy- cle-on-bus permit for $2.50. The same fee is required to renew the permit each year (the training course is taken only once). FIGURE 13 Easy-to-use, one bar lock, front-mounted bike rack—Fort Smith Transit.

24 TRAINING AND EDUCATION There are several methods used to educate bicyclists on how to use the bus bicycle racks. The most common is through websites (see list of websites in Table 1); however, explana- tory posters, brochures, and other educational materials are also used. A few agencies will provide individual training or bring a demonstration bus bike rack to public events and transit stations. Bus drivers are provided with instruction on bus bike racks during introductory training and normal instructional courses. This training also includes safety issues, rules and restrictions, and adjusting for extra bus length when making turns. Nine agencies had developed CD-ROMs, presentations, or other educational materials for training and education sessions. MAINTENANCE Most agencies noted that the cost of maintaining the bike racks was minimal (one reported that bike rack maintenance represented one-quarter of one percent of their entire mainte- nance budget). Based on the responses to the survey, the cost to maintain each bike rack is roughly $50 to $100 per year. Bus bike racks can rust and be damaged easily when buses make contact with other objects or vehicles. Most agencies include these types of repairs as a part of routine maintenance procedures. One agency reported that its bus bike racks were maintained for 6 to 7 years before they needed to be replaced. Several agencies mentioned that bus bike racks add com- plexity to other routine maintenance procedures. Maintenance challenges include obtaining replacement parts for broken bus bike racks, difficulty in cleaning the front of the bus, bus wash- ers being damaged by the racks, interference with wipers, the need to remove the rack when a bus is towed, and freezing parts during winter (although such freezing was rare, even in some of the most extreme northern climates). Even with these challenges, maintenance was not typically an obstacle to providing bike-on-bus services.

Next: Chapter Four - Integration of Bicycles with Rail 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!