Click for next page ( 5


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 4
5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND 2001, and 2003. These strategies promote a multimodal trans- portation system and emphasize reducing the transportation Brief History of Bicycle and Transit Integration system's negative impacts on the environment. The 2003 Strategy mentions both bicycling and public transportation The first formalized bicycle and transit integration programs sustainable transportation choices. It also promotes invest- were bike-on-ferry services established in the 1940s and ment in planning and infrastructure for sustainable trans- 1950s. A few transit systems began to experiment with bike- portation facilities (5). However, local funds are typically on-bus services (see Figure 1) in the 1970s and with bike-on- used for the integration of bicycles and transit in Canada; rail services in the 1980s. Most of these bicycle services were very limited federal funds are available. local initiatives that were not originally duplicated by other transit agencies. During the past 15 years, bicycle and transit services have continued to expand and diversify. Emerging types of bicy- Significant growth in bicycle and transit integration ser- cle and transit integration include bike-on-vanpool services, vices began in the early 1990s. In 1991, the U.S. Congress new ways to store bicycles on rail cars, high-capacity bus passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency bicycle racks, high-capacity bike parking at transit stations, Act (ISTEA), which emphasized a multimodal approach to and staffed bicycle parking. Transit agencies have learned improve the efficiency of the transportation system (1). This from the experiences of agencies that pioneered bicycle ser- legislation increased the amount of funding available for vices and have been able to develop successful bicycle pro- bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit systems. ISTEA grams in their own communities. was followed in 1997 by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which continued to support the development of multimodal transportation systems (2). This TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 4 federal legislation has helped to create funding for bicycle and transit programs, including bicycle projects, under the The publication of TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 4: eligibility for both highway and transit programs. State depart- Integration of Bicycles and Transit in 1994 provided one of ments of transportation (DOTs), counties, and municipalities the first comprehensive reports on bicycle and transit inte- are all participants in bicycle programs (e.g., California, gration in North America (6). It covered bicycle-on-bus, Delaware, and Washington State DOTs lead their states' bicycle-on-rail, bicycle-on-ferry, and bicycle parking and efforts); however, this synthesis is focused primarily on tran- access programs. The 1994 synthesis described different sit programs. In that context, local transit agencies spent bicycle services and discussed issues such as procedures and approximately $28 million of federal transportation funding regulations, safety, staffing, training, marketing, and procure- for bicycle-related projects between fiscal years 1999 and ment of equipment. 2004 (3). Funding for these projects did not all come from transit programs, but also included Highway Surface Trans- Recent Research on Integration portation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Qual- of Bicycles and Transit ity (CMAQ) funds transferred for transit use. Note that this synthesis does not capture the additional funds used for bicy- Since the publication of TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice cle programs from the federal highway enhancements pro- 4, the literature on bicycle and transit integration has primar- gram, or state, county, or municipal sources not related to ily focused on services provided by individual agencies. transit. Studies have summarized and evaluated bicycle-on-bus, bicycle-on-rail, and bicycle parking programs. The Transportation Association of Canada published A New Vision for Urban Transportation in 1993, which was Studies of bicycle-on-bus services have been done in com- reprinted in 1998 (4). One of its specific principles was to munities such as MiamiDade County, Florida (7); Bremen, provide "storage facilities at transit stations and on transit Germany (8); and Phoenix, Arizona (9). Bicycle-on-rail vehicles to encourage bike and ride." Transport Canada pre- services have been studied in Stuttgart, Germany (10) and pared Sustainable Development Strategy documents in 1997, Santa Clara Valley, California (11). General studies have