Bike/Transit Integration
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 25 January 2010
This chapter describes ways of integrating bicycling and public transit travel, including improved cycling access and bicycle storage at transit stops and stations, and the ability to carry bikes on transit vehicles.
Bicycling integrates well with Public Transit (bus, train, ferry, and air transport). Transit is most effective for moderate- and long-distance trips on busy corridors, while cycling is effective for shorter-distance trips with multiple stops. Combining transit and cycling can provide a high level of mobility comparable to automobile travel.
A transit stop normally draws riders within a 10-minute (a half-mile) walking distance. At a modest riding speed a cyclists can travel three or four times that distance in the same time, increasing the transit catchment area about ten-fold (Accessibility). Bicycle access tends to be particularly important in suburban areas where densities are moderate and destinations are dispersed (Bracher, 2000). Several strategies for integrating cycling and transit are described below.
Transit vehicles can carry bicycles, with bikeracks mounted on buses or by carrying bicycles in vehicles (often only during off-peak periods). This allows a bicycle to be used at both ends of the journey, and helps cyclists who experience a mechanical failure, unexpected bad weather, or sudden illness. It also allows cyclists to pass major barriers, such as tunnels or bridges, where cycling is prohibited or particularly difficult. About a third of all transit buses in North America now have bike racks, and many rail systems have some provisions for carrying bikes. Some agencies charge extra for bikerack use, others provide it as a free service.
It is important to provide good Bicycle Parking at transit stops and transportation terminals. Commuters who leave high-quality bicycles at a transit stop all day require a high level of security and are willing to pay for it, although simpler bike racks may be adequate for many cyclists, so a mix of paid lockers and free racks may be appropriate. The table below compares typical costs for automobile and bicycle parking.
Table 1 Park-and-Ride and Bike-and-Ride Facility Comparison (Replogle and Parcells, 1992)
|
Characteristic |
Park-and-Ride |
Bike-and-Ride |
|
Land requirements (m2) |
30 |
1-2 |
|
Installation cost per space |
$10,000 - $12,000 |
$140 - $800 |
|
Operating cost per space (year) |
$110 |
$0 - $30 |
Bicycle access to transit can be improved by providing paths, bike lanes and road improvements that make it easier to ride to transit stations and terminals (Bicycle Improvements). Maps that illustrate the best cycling routes between terminals and common destinations are also helpful.
Taxi Improvements may include special provisions to accommodate bicycles, providing cyclists with an important fallback option when they have medical or mechanical problems.
Public Bike Systems (PBS) are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient mobility for short, utilitarian urban trips. They often have stations at public transit stations. This is particularly common in Northern European countries such as Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Similarly, bicycle rental businesses are common near ferry terminals on many of the resort islands along the Washington State and British Columbia coasts.
Bike/Transit Integration is usually implemented by transit agencies, often in consultation with bicycle user groups and transit operators. Implementation typically involves the following steps (Nonmotorized Transport Planning):
· Determine which routes and stops will be bicycle accessible.
· Select, purchase and install equipment. Some transit agencies now specify that all new buses will be equipped with bikeracks, just as they specify wheelchair accessibility.
· Train operators and users. Some transit agencies take a bikerack to public events that cyclists can use to practice mounting bikes on.
· Market the service. Transit agencies often print a brochure describing bikerack use, and add information on bikeracks to bus schedules.
Bike/Transit integration supports both transit and bicycle transportation. Bicycle and transit integration has proven successful in attracting new riders. Transit agencies find that a significant portion of bike locker and rack users consist of new transit riders. For example, 30% of users of Vancouver’s bike lockers at a transit station had not previously used public transit to commute (Planning and Marketing Division, 1992).
The travel impacts of a particular Bike/Transit project depend on whether it significantly improves access, and whether conditions are conducive to cycling and transit. Bike/Transit integration can be an important part of overall transit and bicycle improvements, and can be particularly important for encouraging transit use in lower-density suburbs. For more information see Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport.
Many European and Japanese cities achieve much more balanced transportation, in part, by effectively integrating bicycling and transit. The table above shows the high usage of these modes in some countries. The potential for vehicle travel reductions is large when conditions are suitable.
Table 2 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
Is a cost-effective way to reduce vehicle travel in the right conditions. |
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
2 |
" |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
Encourages cycling and transit use. |
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
0 |
|
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
Encourages cycling and transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
Encourages cycling and transit use. |
|
Increased walking. |
0 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Benefits include increased choice and security for cyclists, increased cycling and transit use, and reduced automobile travel.
Costs include expenses to purchase, install and maintain bike racks and lockers; liability, accident risk and delays from bike racks on buses; and increased stress to drivers. Most transit agencies that carry bikes on racks or in vehicles experience minimal problems once the programs are established, as indicated by the large number of transit agencies that have expanded this service.
Bicycle racks suitable for buses typically cost $500-1,000 (U.S. dollars) for a high-quality model that can carry two bicycles (SportWorks). Bike racks on buses can create operational problems (such as extending bus size, and making it more difficult to wash buses). Simple bicycle storage racks typically cost $50-100 per bike. Covered bike racks and lockers cost $300-1,000 per bicycle, depending on design, materials and location. Bike storage may take up valuable space around transit stations.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel, increases affordable travel options. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Improves choices for cyclists, and can help in emergencies. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
May allow cyclist to avoid riding on busy, dangerous roads. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Reduces automobile travel, increases cycling. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Only cyclists directly benefit from bike storage and racks, so some noncyclists may disapprove of public expenditures on facilities and services they do not use. However, these expenditures are usually smaller than public expenditures on facilities and services provided to motorists, such as free parking (Transportation Costs), and all road users can benefit indirectly from reduced traffic congestion and crash risk. By improving affordable mobility for non-drivers this strategy increases vertical equity and benefits some people who are transportation disadvantaged (those who rely on both cycling and transit).
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
-1 |
Only directly benefits cyclists. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
0 |
May involve subsidies, although probably smaller than subsidies for driving the same trip. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
2 |
Cyclists and transit riders tend to be lower-income. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
2 |
Significantly improves mobility for some non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Improves travel options and provides helps cyclists deal with emergencies, such as a broken bike. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Bike/Transit integration is particularly appropriate for regional travel (longer-distance trips) in areas with heavy cycling activity. It is primarily implemented at the regional or local level, but other levels of government sometimes provide financial support. Some developers and private companies provide bike storage near transit stations.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
3 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
1 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
1 |
|
Transit centers |
3 |
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Travel Choice
This strategy supports Nonmotorized Planning, Cycling Improvements, Bicycle Encouragement, Transit Improvements and Shuttle Services. It can be part of Transit Oriented Development, Commute Trip Reduction, Campus Trip Management, and Transportation Management Association efforts. It includes Bicycle Parking. Its effectiveness increases with other strategies that encourage cycling and public transit.
Most Bike/Transit projects are implemented by public transit agencies. Bike routes to transit stops are usually implemented by local government as part of bicycle planning. In a few cities, private companies provide bicycle parking services at transit stations.
Program funding is often the primary barrier. There may be resistance to carrying bicycles on transit vehicles from transit agency planners and drivers who are concerned about schedule delays and liability problems.
Publications cited below (particularly FTA 1999) describe best practices for integrating cycling and transit service. These include:
· Cyclists should be involved in planning Bike/Transit programs and selecting hardware.
· Bike Parking facilities should be well designed, provide cover from the weather, and be located where they are not in the way of traffic.
· If possible there should be some fully enclosed bike storage lockers suitable for long-term bike storage.
· Bike/Transit programs should be well publicized, and include instructions for cyclists on how to use facilities.
|
Imagine what would happen if sometime while you are out bicycling a flying saucer drops down and offers you an interplanetary ride. You could say, “Sure, let’s go to the Chryse Planitia, and we’ll head southeastward from there.” Then show those nice aliens that earthlings are as good at mountain biking as any life form in the galaxy…
For the full story read: Cycling Route Perfect For Heavenly Bodies |
Pucher and Buehler (2009) provide detailed information on several North American case studies of Bike-Bus Integration.
This website lists dozens of North American transit agencies that accommodate bicycling.
Bikestations are attended bike-transit centers that offer secure valet bicycle parking and other transit amenities to encourage the use of a bicycle as a transportation mode. Currently three facilities are in operation in California; Long Beach, Palo Alto and Berkeley.
The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority is installing front-mounted bike racks on its buses. Each rack holds two bicycles, and features an easy-to-use spring-action latch that allows the mounting and dismounting of a bicycle in about 30 seconds. Within four years the entire 2,200 MTA bus fleet should be bicycle compatible and newer buses will come equipped from the factory with the bike racks. The MTA is working with the LA County Bicycle Advisory Group, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee and several other bike organizations to determine the most appropriate bus routes to select. Studies indicate that the most likely users of bus bikeracks are cyclists who are a mile or two away from a bike route. MTA expects the bicycle racks will attract a new market of riders.
Seattle Metro transit agency’s entire bus fleet was equipped with bicycle racks in 1994. Bikes can be transported on board any bus on a first come, first served basis. No additional fare is required. Bicycles may be loaded or unload at any bus zone at any time, except, in the central business district where some restrictions apply. More than 40,000 cyclists use these racks each month.
BC Transit in British Columbia provides bike storage lockers at many transit stations and park-and-ride stops, and is installing bike racks on an increasing portion of their buses. The agency uses a front-mounted rack that carries two bicycles and folds close to the bus when not in use. Bike storage lockers are leased by the month through local bicycle organizations.
Nearly all of the San Francisco Bay area transit agencies accommodate bicycles (there are more than a dozen), either with racks or by allowing bicycles inside (sometimes only during off-peak periods).
The city of Nottingham, UK, has a new tram system. A research project at the University of Nottingham aims to identify ways of minimizing risks for cyclists and encourage the integration of bike and tram transport. The project will report on three main issues: safety implications; bike-and-ride; bike carriage on trams. The project is jointly-funded by the Department of Transport, in partnership with Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County Councils. Research will focus on recent UK experience of trams, (including Sheffield, Croydon, West Midlands and Manchester), but will also look at European practice. The results of the research are intended to inform revised guidelines on integrating bikes and trams. The 12-month project will run until January 2002. A website has been established to help publicize the project. This can be found at: www.nottingham.ac.uk/sbe/research/current.htm.
|
Bikes and Transit (www.bikemap.com/bikesontransit/index.php)
Ways to use bicycles and transit together
What transit systems and municipalities can do to increase ridership
|
Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).
Tilman Bracher (2000), “Demand Characteristics & Co-operation Strategies for the Bicycle & Railway Transport Chain,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 6, No. 4 (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp), pp. 18-24.
Bike On Transit Database (www.bikemap.com/bikesontransit/index.php)
Allison L. C. de Cerreño and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny (2006), Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central Cities, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (www.wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter); available at http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/files/bikeped.pdf.
FTA (1999), Bicycles & Transit; A Partnership That Works, Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov).
Karel Martens (2007), “Promoting Bike-and-Ride: The Dutch Experience,” Transportation Research, Vol. 41, Issue 4 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), May 2007, pp. 326-338.
John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillian Press (London).
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2009), “Integrating Bicycling and Public Transport in North America,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3 (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journalfulltext.htm), pp. 101-126; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-3Pucher.pdf.
Michael Replogle and Harriet Purcells (1992), Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities with Transit, National Bicycle and Walking Study, Case Study No. 9, FHWA, (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org).
Robert Schneider (2005), Integration of Bicycles and Transit: A Synthesis of Transit Practice, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 62, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_syn_62.pdf.
SportWorks (www.sportworks.com) manufactures bike racks for buses.
Steve Spindler and John Boyle (1999), “Bikes on Transit” (www.bikemap.com/trans.html). Website lists transit agencies that accommodate bicycling.
Hartmut H. Topp (2008), “Can MeetBike Replace the Car?,” World Transport Policy & Practice (www.eco-logica.co.uk), Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 24-31; at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp14.3.pdf.
USEPA (1998), Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs, Transportation and Air Quality TCM Technical Overviews, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/publicat/pub_tech.htm).
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#2