bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation...

Bicycle and PedestrianConnections to Transit

FHWA COURSE ON BICYCLEAND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIANCONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT

L E S S O N 9L E S S O N 9L E S S O N 9L E S S O N 9L E S S O N 9

FHWA

9 - 1

9.1 PurposeBicycling and walking typically account for one-fourth to one-half of all personal trips in Europeancities, as well as the vast majority of all publictransportation access trips, even in lower densitysuburban areas. This stands in sharp contrast to theUnited States, where the share of personal trips madeby non-motorized means fell in recent decades toless than 10 percent, and where automobile park-and-ride accounts for a major share of suburban transitaccess (FHWA-PD-93-016, The National Bicyclingand Walking Case Study No. 17: Bicycle andPedestrian Policies and Programs in Asia, Austra-lia, and New Zealand, 1993).

The U.S. Congress emphasized connections betweentransit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in theTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century(TEA-21), providing several fundingsources for bicycle and pedestrianimprovements through the FederalTransit Program. In one example, TEA-21 created a Transit EnhancementActivity program with a 1-percent set-aside of Urbanized Area Formula Grantfunds designated for, among otherthings, pedestrian access and walk-ways, and “bicycle access, includingbicycle storage facilities and installingequipment for transporting bicycles onmass transportation vehicles.”

This lesson discusses the history ofbicycle and pedestrian access to

transit in the United States, and provides an over-view on how bicycling and walking is beingintegrated with transit. Case studies from the UnitedStates and Europe describe successful projects.

9.2 IntroductionIn city after city, transit agencies are discovering thatbicycles and transit are agood combination. Thepopularity of linking bicycles with transit is demon-strated in Phoenix, for example, where a 1997 studyfound that there are more than 2,100 daily users ofbike-on-bus racks.

In Aspen, Colorado, bus operators must often turnaway bicyclists in the summer mountain bikingseason; in Austin, Texas, and Seattle, Washington,transit agencies recently decided to equip their entire



FHWA

9 - 2

fleet of city buses with bikeracks. And on the West Coast, amanufacturer of bus racks forbicycles reports sales in 80transit agencies in more than 30States. (National Bicycle andPedestrian ClearinghouseTechnical Assistance Series,No.1, 1995)

9.3 Overview ofthe ProblemWhile U.S. transit authoritieshave expended considerableplanning and engineering effortsto meet pedestrian needs in the interiors of transitstations, in many cases, little attention has beendevoted to either the pedestrian or bicycling environ-ment to and from stations. Poorly developedinter-jurisdictional and interagency cooperation oftenimpedes consideration of the door-to-door experienceof using public transportation. It is not unusual forseveral different agencies to maintain independentcontrol over the various facilities that are used bysomeone walking or cycling to and from a singletransit stop.

Unless these agencies agree to cooperate together inassessing, planning, and enhancing non-motorizedtransit access, major impediments to pedestrian andbicycle access may persist or grow in severity. Localand State governments with the authority to manage,maintain, and construct pedestrian and bicycle

facilities and roads shouldcooperate with transit agenciesand interested citizens indeveloping action programs toreduce barriers to bicycle andpedestrian access to transit.

METRO of Seattle, Washing-ton, for example, is working tointegrate non-motorized accessto transit from the beginning inplans for new regional transitservices, rather than as an“add-on” to already designedtransit projects. In December1991, METRO published a Non-Motorized Access Study, which

was a study conducted to assess the potential of andmake recommendations for incorporating bicycle andpedestrian access into the system plan for Seattle’sRegional Transit Project. The Regional TransitProject examines two future rapid-transit alternativesfor the region — a transitway alternative (bus andhigh-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities) and a railsystem alternative (light rail). The study notes:

“The potential commuter travel shed surrounding atransit line can be increased by adding station andvehicle amenities to allow easier interface betweenbicycles and the transit system.”

Among the study’s key findings are the following:

• Approximately 1 million people livewithin a 2-mile (desirable bikingdistance) radius of the proposedrapid-transit system stations (asignificant potential transit market).

• Agencies that have madeimprovements for bicycle access tostations see substantial increases inbicycle ridership at those stations.

• Transit vehicle (bus and rail)modifications and facility accessrequirements can be accommodatedat relatively modest capital costs.(FHWA-PD-93-012, The NationalBicycling and Walking Case StudyNo. 9: Linking Bicycle/PedestrianFacilities With Transit, 1992)

Lack of adequate bike parking is a commonproblem at urban subways.

According to 1990 NPTS data, 53 percent of all people nationwide live less than 2miles from the closest public transportation route.



FHWA

9 - 3

9.4 Pedestrian Access toTransitWalking is the most environmentally friendly andlow-cost way to get people to and from publictransportation. When given sidewalks or traffic-calmed streets to walk along, safe and convenientways to cross streets, and a comfortable andattractive environment, most people are willing towalk farther to reach public transportation.In the United States, however lack of attention topedestrian needs beyond the bounds of the transitstation seems fairly common. The location of park-and-ride lots is often not amenable to non-motorizedaccess. One transit agency commented that all oftheir park-and-ride lots are located near freewaysand/or shopping areas where residential housing isquite far away and there are no paths or sidewalkslocated near the park-and-ride lots.

Some U.S. transit and transportation agencies,however, are showing a growing and promisingawareness of the need to focus on the larger environ-ment that surrounds and leads to transit stations andbus stops:

CharlotteThe City of Charlotte, North Carolina, began aproject in 1981 to encourage walking and bicycleaccess to bus transit along its heavily traveledCentral Avenue Corridor, which contains sevenintersections at Level of Service (LOE) E or F duringthe peak hours. To help address bicycle accessneeds, 20 bicycle racks and 3 lockers were installed atkey bus stops. Pedestrian access was improved byinstalling 114 pedestrian signals and 115 pushbuttons at key intersections, and sidewalks wereconstructed with curb-cut ramps.

Los AngelesThe Southern California Rapid Transit District(SCRTD) has developed an interactive computerdemonstration of the sidewalk “level of service”effects of pedestrian overcrowding. This was used ina successful effort to mitigate a plan by the LosAngeles Department of Transportation to takesidewalk space away from a rail station area that willserve the intersection of the RED and BLUE railtransit lines. SCRTD has also completed a plan to

improve pedestrian access to the Hill Street Metroportals, including wider sidewalks, pedestrianshortcuts to key destinations, trees, and a pedestrianwalkway connecting the Museum of ContemporaryArt with the newly installed “Angel’s Flight” cablerailway.

HoustonMETRO of Houston recently entered into a programto implement sidewalks along major roads to provideaccess to their transit facilities.

SacramentoAll-light rail transit (LRT) stations in Sacramento, CA,except one which is located in a freeway right-of-way,provide at-grade pedestrian and bicycle access.Some 17 of the system’s 28 stations are within threeblocks of a city or county trail facility. Linkages atmost stations are via residential or connector streetswith low traffic volumes, presenting fewer problemsfor people on foot or bicycle. Four LRT stations arelocated on pedestrian/transit malls.

Portland, OregonPortland offers an outstanding example of linkingpedestrian facilities to public transportation. Reallo-cating street space downtown to transit andpedestrians has helped keep the central businessdistrict healthy, retaining a much higher share ofregional retail activity than in other cities wheredowntown area has declined. (NBWS Case StudyNo. 9)

9.5 How Are Bicycles BeingIntegrated With Transit?A variety of facilities and services are being pro-vided: bike racks on buses; provisions for thetransport of bicycles on light- and heavy-rail transit,commuter rail, and long-distance trains; bike parkingat transit stations; design improvements at transitstations (curb cuts, signing, and lighting); links totransit centers (bike lanes, multi-use trails, andwidened roadway shoulders); and bicycle-ferryprograms.

A thorough discussion of the issues surrounding theimplementation of bicycle-transit integration is foundin two documents: Linking Bicycle and Pedestrian



FHWA

9 - 4

Facilities With Transit, National Bicycling andWalking Study, Case Study 9; and Integration ofBicycles and Transit, Transportation Research Board(TRB), 1994.

1. Transit Agency Concerns: Safety, ScheduleDelays, and Equipment.

Schedule Adherence.The TRB study shows that most transit agencies arenot experiencing problems with schedule delays; newbike-on-bus rack design has minimized dwell times forloading and removal.

Safety and Protection of Transit Property.The TRB study has also shown that the impact ofbicycle-transit integration has been minimal on thepersonal safety of bicyclists, operators, or the public,and on transit agency property. Bike racks on thefronts of buses have not proven to interfere withdriving. Rail operators attribute their positive safetyrecord to a permit process used by most agenciesthat educates bicyclists about the program andensures that they will not have a detrimental impacton the system.

Equipment Procurement.Much of the equipment needed for bicycle-transitintegration is now easily obtainable. With regard toequipment procurement, transit agency personnelmust take into consideration design criteria, technicalspecifications, and capital costs.

2. Bicyclist Concerns: Fares,Permits/Fees, Restricted Hours,Parking, and Access.

Many bicyclists contend that time-restricted access lowers use amongeveryday bicyclists. For example, inWashington, DC, a lack of earlymorning access for the bike-on-railprogram leaves unserved thosecommuters who could use their bikesfor egress from Metrorail stations tojob sites and schools. Programs thatrequire permits discourage use bytourists, other visitors, and localresidents who may be casual users.

Additional fares for transporting bikes also createsa disincentive for use, however most transit systemshave not instituted such fares. (National Bicycleand Pedestrian Clearinghouse Technical AssistanceSeries, No. 1, 1995)

9.6 Bike-on-Bus ProgramsBike-on-bus programs are functionally similar to bike-on-rail programs, but often operate in much lowerdensity corridors than rail transport. By expanding abus line’s access and egress service area, bike-on-bus programs can attract many passengers whowould not otherwise be able to use transit for theirtrip, particularly to reach suburban destinationswhere transit coverage is often sparse.

There are three means of accommodating bicycles onbuses — rear-mounted racks, front-mounted racks,and allowing bikes inside the bus. Rear-mountedracks were the earliest type of systems, butpreferences appear to have shifted toward front-mounted racks. At least three transit systems nowuse rear-mounted racks — San Diego Transit,Humboldt Transit Authority in northern California,and the Santa Cruz Transit District in California. Twoagencies that previously used rear-mounted racks–North County Transit in northern San Diego Countyand Windham Regional Transit in Willimantic, CT–have changed their policies; the former tofront-mounted racks and the latter to a policy thatpermits bikes inside the buses.

The preferred style of bike rack mounts to the front of the bus.



FHWA

9 - 5

Most U.S. bike-on-bus servicesdo not require a permit, incontrast to most U.S. bike-on-rail services. While most U.S.transit systems accommodatebikes only on designatedroutes, a few cities, such asPhoenix, AZ, Aspen, CO, andSacramento, CA, have no routerestrictions and have openedtheir entire system to carryingbicycles.

The City of Phoenix began a 6-month bike-on-busdemonstration program fromMarch through August 1991 to assess potential useof the service. Bicycle racks were mounted on thefront of buses operating on three routes that wereselected based on criteria developed in coordinationwith the bicycle community. Two-thirds of the$15,000 program cost came from a grant by theArizona Department of Environmental Quality.During the demonstration program, 5,500 bicycletrips were taken and ridership steadily increased. Atthe end of the first month, 153 riders had used theservice. By the end of the third month (May), thisjumped to 1,109 riders per month and by theend of the 6 months, there were 1,404 ridersper month. Phoenix Transit reported no safetyproblems associated with the new service. Theservice not only attracted increasing numbers ofbicyclists, but also attractedto transit people who did notpreviously use buses. ABike Rider Survey found thatthe vast majority (90percent) of the bus ridersused the bike racks forcommuting. An evaluationof the demonstrationconcluded:

“From the response re-ceived, it would not be astretch to say that theprogram was overwhelm-ingly popular among transitriders and [was] hailed as

an excellent idea by bike riders.For bus patrons it is an addedoption, for bike riders it is anopportunity, and for publictransit it is another step towardreducing the number of vehiclestraveling on the road.”

As a result of the successfuldemonstration, the PhoenixTransit bike-on-bus program wasexpanded system-wide in July1992. By 1997, all 463 buses inthe Phoenix system wereequipped with front-mountedbike racks, each of which carried

two bikes. A survey in 1997 found that there were2,146 daily users of the bike racks within Phoenixalone (not including use outside of Phoenix).

Although most transit agencies offering bike-on-busservices have relied on various devices outside thebus, a few agencies have decided that addedhardware is unnecessary and have allowed bicyclesinside their buses. Westchester County Departmentof Transportation (WCDOT), located near New YorkCity, simply adopted a permissive “welcome aboard”policy toward bicyclists and other potential usersbeginning in the late 1970s. The space provided forwheelchair-bound passengers could be used bythose traveling with baby carriages, shopping carts,bulky packages, or bicycles. This policy applied only

Some transit agencies allow bicyclists to carrytheir bikes onto trains and buses.



FHWA

9 - 6

to handicapped-accessibleAdvanced Design Buses andonly in non-peak periods.Wheelchair users were givenpriority over bicycles at all times.No problems had been reportedwith the service.

9.7 Bike-on-RailProgramsThe first American commuter railsystem permitting bicycles inpassenger coaches in recentyears was the Southern PacificRailroad (SP), serving SanFrancisco and San Jose. A 4-month demonstrationproject in 1982, sponsored by the California Depart-ment of Transportation (Caltrans), allowed cyclists tosecure their bicycles in the aisles of the rail cars atno charge during non-peak hours. No permit wasrequired. Southern Pacific’s management, however,showed little enthusiasm for the project and de-manded payment of $73,000 by Caltrans to indemnifySP for potential accidents. While there were noschedule delays, injuries, or inconveniences to otherpassengers during the 4-month demonstration, lackof publicity and a short program duration resulted inlow bicycle use–only about 100 users per week. SPmanagement’s demand for costly insurance payments— more than $100 per bicycle trip — resulted inthe program being dropped.

At the time of the Caltransdemonstration project, onlytwo other North American railsystems had carried bicycles formore than 1 year: BART, the railrapid transit system in the SanFrancisco Bay Area and PortAuthority Trans-Hudson(PATH) in New Jersey, whichstarted its bike-on-rail programin 1962. BART’s programenjoyed strong public support;by 1980, BART had issued morethan 9,000 bike-on-rail permits.Community support and theexcellent safety record of the

program prompted BART to relax restrictions on thebike-on-rail service and permits were made availablethrough the mail. By 1984, the number of permits hadmore than tripled to 28,000; this had grown to 71,000permits by 1992.

BART’s success prompted other rail systems toinstitute bike-on-rail programs. Today, they exist onmany commuter rail, and heavy and light rail transit(LRT)systems in cities across the country, and othertransit agencies are planning bike-on-rail service.

New light rail systems that have opened in some U.S.cities in recent years are integrating bicycles withtheir systems, providing bicycle parking at stations,and permitting bike-on-rail service. These include

LRT systems in Santa Clara County,San Diego, Sacramento, and LosAngeles, CA and Portland, OR. Inmid-1992, Portland initiated a morecomprehensive bike-on-transitprogram, including bikes on the LRTand on regional buses, and increasedbicycle parking facilities at stations.

PermitsMost U.S. transit authorities withbike-on-rail service require a bicyclistto obtain a valid permit. Costs for thepermit generally range from $3 to 5and are valid for varying lengths oftime. Some systems, especially thosewith newer programs, require annualpermit renewal, while on other

Bicycle stencils on outside and inside doors of Danish State Railways, local “S-Tog”trains indicate those doors where bikes may be brought on board the train.

Connections between transit systems andbike networks and pedestrian trails make itobvious how convenient these options oftravel are.



FHWA

9 - 7

systems, permits may be valid for 3 to 5 years, andon some, for an unlimited period. While the permitprocess provides a means of assessing use of thesystem and ensures that bicyclists are familiar withthe program rules and regulations, permits severelyconstrain demand, generally excluding tourists andpotential occasional users. A few simple billboardsor signs in transit vehicles and near stations, asfound in Europe, would provide an alternative meansof communicating rules of operation.

It is notable that not a single European bike-on-railprogram requires a permit for the carriage of bicycles.A large number of rail systems across Europe allowbicycles on trains. Some offer this service for free,while others charge a fare supplement for the bicycle.Eliminating permits allows them to attract a largerpool of users, generate added revenues, and avoidthe often considerable costs associated with permitadministration. Santa Clara County Transit, inCalifornia, is the first U.S. transit agency to take amore European attitude toward the bicycle, allowingthem on board without a permit, at no extra charge.

Time RestrictionsThe U.S. bike-on-rail services are almost all restrictedto times outside the weekday peak hours. Theexceptions are BART in San Francisco and thecommuter rail system in Boston, MA, which allowsbicycles to be carried during peak hours in the“reverse commute” direction only. Restrictions onmost systems prohibit bicycles on rail weekdaysbefore 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m. in the morning (someallow bikes before 6:00 a.m.) and from 3:00 p.m. orfrom 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. Weekend policies vary, withsome systems having no restrictions and someblocking out certain hours when there is substantialshopping, work, or recreational travel. SeveralEuropean bike-on-rail systems, including Oslo andAmsterdam, have no time restrictions on the timewhen bicycles can be brought on board. Withoutany restrictions, bicyclists, using their own commonsense, tend to naturally avoid bringing bicycles intorail cars during crowded rush hours. Santa ClaraCounty Transit again leads the United States inadopting the most European attitude toward bike-on-rail, allowing two bicycles per car in peak hours, andfour per car in non-peak hours.

Rail Car Design ConstraintsRestrictions on the number of bikes permitted oneach rail transit system vary. Some systems permit

two bicycles/car and others allow bicycles only onthe last car of the train, with a maximum of fourbicycles/train. In Santa Clara County, the bike-on-railprogram is so popular that the number of bikes farexceeds the limit. Passengers are expressing con-cerns about access problems caused by bicycleovercrowding and efforts are under way to try toresolve this.

Rail transit system restrictions on the number ofbicycles permitted are based in part on rail cardesigns in this country, in which bicycle accommoda-tion has not been a consideration. On the MARTAsystem in Atlanta, and on other systems, bicyclistshold their bikes in a fold-up seat area near thebackdoor of the rail car.

In California, design of the new “California Car,”mandated and funded by Proposition 116, requiresaccommodation of a reasonable number of bicyclescarried on board by passengers for both inter-cityand commuter applications. The California Car is abi-level car that superficially resembles Amtrak’sSuperliner, but with significant design differences,including bicycle storage on the lower level of thecar. The new rail car, which will be used on State-sponsored Amtrak and local commuter rail services,is a promising new development in the United States.Its specifications could be adapted by other railagencies to enhance bicycle-rail linkage.

9.8 Bicycle ParkingFacilities at Transit StationsCities and transit authorities across the country arebeginning to recognize the crucial role of securebicycle parking at transit stations in promotingincreased bicycle access to transit. A number of theNation’s commuter rail and rail transit systems areinvesting in bicycle parking, but many lack a morecomprehensive strategy that looks at theenvironment beyond the station. Frequently, thequality of the parking provided is inadequate, leavingmost bicycles vulnerable to theft and vandalism. Themajority of suburban bus transit systems, whichcould expand service area and ridership throughbicycle-transit interface, appear to pay little, if any,attention to bicycle parking facilities at bus stops.

There is wide variation in the use of bicycle racksand lockers between rail stations and also between



FHWA

9 - 8

transit systems. A crucial factor appears to be thedegree to which the environment leading to thestation is bicycle-friendly and the quality of thebicycle parking provided. In areas where separatebicycle paths or bike lanes on streets have beenimplemented, facilitating connection to rail or busservices, the ease and safety of access by bicycle isgreatly enhanced. Access to many stations is onstreets where little or no thought has been given tobicycle safety, curtailing the extent of bicycle access.The degree to which a transit agency activelypromotes its bicycle parking facilities, and morebroadly, promotes the environmental and socialbenefits of bicycle access vs. auto access, alsoimpacts upon the use of bicycle lockers and racks.

The Economics of a Guarded Bicycle ParkingGarage in GermanySince July 1989, in Wunstorf, Germany, nearHannover, local authorities, working with a privatebicycle shop owner, have developed a “BicycleStation” to provide 320 guarded bicycle parkingspaces at the railway station, along with bicyclerental and repair services. In the first 22 months ofoperation, the number of bicycles parked at the railstation increased fourfold to about 160 each day, withgrowth continuing at a rate of 20 to 30 percent peryear. Since the second year of operation, some 60 to90 bicycles were rented each month in the warmermonths of the year, mostly on weekends.

The facility and rental bicycles are in public owner-ship, but operations are handled under a private

As in Vasteras, Sweden, cycle parking in the downtown area is essential to the encouragementof cycle commuting as well as leisure travel to the city’s center.

franchise contract. User fees forparking have been set at US$1.85 perweek, $5.60 per month, or $56 peryear for those with a weekly,monthly, or yearly railway pass,respectively; without a railway pass,parking fees are one-third higher.Single-use parking costs US$0.75 perday. The vast majority of users buymonthly parking cards to obtain thediscount they offer.

Bicycle parking fees comprise two-thirds to three-fourths of therevenues in any given month, withbicycle repair work comprising mostof the remainder, except in the

warmer months, when bicycle rentals, mostly forrecreational use, provide up to a fifth of revenues.The franchise operator is guaranteed minimumreceipts by the local authorities of US$750 per month,but as of May 1991, monthly revenues from theoperation were US$1,650 and were continuing toincrease at a steady pace, so this guarantee was notbeing exercised.

Total cost of the operation is about US$8,900 permonth. The government provides a fixed subsidy ofabout US$7,100 per month (or about US$22 perbicycle parking space) and the franchise operatorpays the remaining costs of about US$1,800. Thefranchise operator is responsible for the cost ofproviding a bicycle mechanic, insurance, andmaintenance of rental bicycles, and a portion ofutilities and building insurance, while the governmentsupports other costs as a means of encouraging theuse of transit and bicycles. With a continuation ofthe fixed contract subsidy, the franchise operator wasanticipated to achieve profitability in his activities atthe Bicycle Station by the end of 1991.

The Bicycle Station is open 108.5 hours per week andis staffed by three people over the course of a typicalday. Labor costs comprise 83 percent of the costs ofoperation. A study that examined the possibility ofsemi-automating the bicycle parking garage using asystem found in Japan and the Netherlands estimatedthat the full cost of conversion would be aboutUS$121,000 to provide a 168-bicycle capacitysystem, or $720 per unit capacity.



FHWA

9 - 9

9.9 Access to TransitCentersThe success of a bicycle-transit integration programmay hinge on the quality of bicycle access to andfrom the transit facility. Multi-use trails, rail-trails,on-road bike lanes, widened shoulders, andsidewalks often provide critical transportationlinkages from neighborhoods and business orcommercial districts to transit centers. Trails thatparallel rail corridors, or rails-with-trails, offer anotherway to link the two modes. (NBWS Case Study No.9)

9.10 Why Link BicyclistsWith Transit Services?Integration enhances travel potential for both modesof travel by offering a number of advantages thateach mode alone cannot provide:

! Bike-on-transit service enables bicyclists totravel farther distances and overcometopographical barriers.

! Bike-on-transit services to recreationaldestinations during off-peak periods canincrease overall transit ridership and increaseefficient use of capacity.

! Bicycle-to-transit services (trails, on-road bikelanes, and bike parking) enlarge transit’scatchment area by making itaccessible to travelers who arebeyond walking distances fromtransit stations.

Integration lowers air pollutantemissions from trips taken on publictransit. Outside of central businessdistricts, most commuters using railtransit and park-n-ride lots arrive byauto; and typical trip lengths are 3 to6 km (5 to 10 miles). For an auto tripof 11 km (7 miles), nearly 90 percentof the emissions occur in the first 1.6km (1 mile), known as the “cold-start” stage.

In most situations, encouraging autocommuters to drive to rail or bustransit produces little air quality

Bicycle shelters used in Germany allow a bike to be parked for 4 days before beingmoved to a long-term parking area, allowing commuters to leave bikes over theweekend.

improvements. However, converting transit accesstrips from auto to bike, or converting car commutes tobike-n-ride transit trips, can produce significantemission reductions. (FHWA-PD-93-012, 1993)

Integration reduces the cost of constructing automo-bile park-n-ride lots, which vary from $1,500 to$20,000 per space. The cost of providing bicycleparking and storage facilities averages $50 to $500each.

In rural communities, integration offers touringbicyclists and other tourists auto-free access topopular recreation destinations such as trails andparks and provides rural bicycle commuters themeans for inter-city or inter-town commuting.(FHWA-PD-93-012, 1993)

9.11 What Are the KeyElements of SuccessfulPrograms?

Demonstration ProjectsMany successful programs began with a limiteddemonstration phase, then expanded to a broader, oreven system-wide, operation. Demonstrationprojects tend to focus on identifying and solvingspecific technical and operational aspects of theservice, and usually lead to wider programimplementation.



FHWA

9 - 10

Advisory CommitteesThis committee should include non-agency organizations andindividuals who have experience inbicycle advocacy in their community,an interest in bicycle-transitprograms, knowledge of user needsand constituency characteristics,and some expertise in bicycle and/ortransit issues.

Marketing and PromotionA bike-transit program mustvigorously market and promote inorder to be effective: a brochuredescribing the agency’s program, atelephone number for information,and drawings or photographs ofequipment to help users understandoperating procedures.

The Tri-Met in Portland, Oregon, distributed 4,000brochures directly to the local bicycle advocacygroup’s membership. In Philadelphia, theSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority(SEPTA) prepared a pamphlet highlighting eightscenic and cultural destinations for bicycle touringthat were accessible by its local rail systems. Bike-to-Work Days and bicycle fairs, or offers of free testrides, have also proven to be effective in promotingnew programs.

Are Federal Funds Available for Bicycle-TransitIntegration?The Rails-To-Trails Conservancy has documentedthe use of Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA) funds in the development ofdozens of bicycle-transit integration facilities.ISTEA/TEA-21 programs being used include theCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality ImprovementProgram, Surface Transportation Program, and theTransportation Enhancements Program. Through theFederal Transit Program in TEA-21, several fundingsources are available for bicycle and pedestrianaccess improvements.

9.12 ExerciseChoose a local transit station (or individual transitstop) and determine the potential catchment area.Design a program for increasing bicycle and pedes-

A pedestrian and bicycle bridge near the Freiburg rail station carries thousands ofpeople each day.

trian access to the transit station, including bothdesign improvements and education/promotionefforts. For physical improvements, include both theimmediate vicinity, as well as connections to originsthat lie in the catchment area.

Alternate ExerciseChoose a nearby transit stop or park-n-ride stationand ride a bike or walk to it. Document the problemsalong the way, as well as those you experience whenyou arrive at the station/stop. Given your knowledgeof the community, what would it take to get people tobicycle and walk to this site?

9.13 ReferencesFor an analysis of the state of the practice, seeIntegration of Bicycles and Transit. Write: TRB,National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Ave.,NW, Washington, DC 20418, $12.

The FHWA reports listed below are available throughthe FHWA Report Center, 9701 Philadelphia Court,Unit Q, Lanham, MD, 20706. Telephone: (301) 577-0818, Fax: (301) 577-1421.

Federal Highway Administration, National Bicycleand Pedestrian Clearinghouse TechnicalAssistance Series, No. 1, 1995.

Federal Highway Administration, National Bicyclingand Walking Study–Case Study No. 9: LinkingBicycle/Pedestrian Facilities With Transit, FHWA-PD-93-012, 1993.



FHWA

9 - 11

Federal Highway Administration, National Bicyclingand Walking Study - Case Study No. 17: Bicycleand Pedestrian Policies and Programs in Asia,Australia, and New Zealand, FHWA-PD-93-016,1993.

To learn more about successful bicycle-transitintegration services, contact the following:

1) Bicycle Parking 4) Heavy RailBART, San Francisco WMATALeo Rachal Washington, D.C.(510) 464-6169 Sharonlee Johnson

(202) 962-1116

2) Bike-on-Bus 5) Light RailMETRO, Seattle Tri-MetRobert Flor Portland, Oregon(206) 684-1611 Linda Williams

(503) 238-4884

3) Commuter Rail 6) Long-Distance RailMetro North AmtrakNew York City Steve RobertsMetro Area (202) 906-2091Kyle McCarthy(212) 340-4916



FHWA

9 - 12

bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation...

Documents