No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Changes in access to public transportation for cycle–transit users in response to service reductions
Abstract
North American transit agencies have made large investments since the late 1990s in the coordination of bicycling and public transit services. A key goal in doing so has been to increase transit ridership by extending the geographic area from which riders can easily and quickly reach transit stops and stations. While it is widely hypothesized that being able to travel on transit vehicles with bicycles allows riders to access transit stops and stations from a larger geographic area, the empirical evidence of this is scanty. Information available for Northeast Ohio, where the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) operates rail, bus and demand response transit, presents an opportunity to address an important aspect of this issue. The availability of detailed long-term bicycle-on-bus boardings (BoBBs) data and the implementation of a series of service reductions in 2008, 2009 and 2010 offer an opportunity to ask the question: Do significant changes in geographic access to transit services result in significant changes to the numbers of cycle–transit users accessing transit buses? The evidence from GCRTA׳s service area provides some support for this conclusion, with the rates of utilization of bus bicycle racks increasing significantly over time and in slightly higher numbers for routes that saw the largest reductions in bus transit service.
... The increase of cycling is correlated to a decrease in both automobile use and traffic speed as motorists change their behaviours, leading to reductions in road fatalities (Schepers and Heinen, 2013). Other researches highlights another urban benefit of cycling, as it supports other modes of urban transport through efficient integration between bicycle and public transit means in the same trip (Cui et al., 2014;Flamm et al., 2014). In addition, some social benefits can be recognized, such as liveability enhancement (Krizec, 2007), improved sense of community (Rissel et al., 2013) and promotion of healthier lifestyles (Owen et al., 2010). ...
... A BFC is mainly characterized by high-density urban development, diversified land-use planning and a safe and comfortable transport network (Stewart and Moudon, 2014;Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2014;Schepers and Heinen, 2013;Flamm et al., 2014;Owen et al., 2010;Küster and Blondel, 2013;Moonen and Clark, 2013;Pucher et al., 1999;Winters et al., 2007;Kristinsdottir, 2012;Williams, 2015;Joo et al., 2015;Majumdara and Mitra, 2013). Both high-density development and diversified land use give rise to nearby destinations. ...
After decades of overdependence on motorized means of transport, and in acknowledgement of major environmental challenges, most of the world's cities are recognizing the importance of adopting non-motorized means of transport to enhance their quality of life. Local authorities are interested in providing facilities that enable city residents to efficiently traverse the urban fabric. Cycling, as an important non-motorized mode of transport, is considered to be an efficient alternative to motor vehicles. Establishing safe and convenient cycle routes has become one of the main development tasks in contemporary cities. Indeed, converting today’s traditional cities into bicycle-friendly ones is considered to be one of the principal goals of development plans. This paper addresses the urban readiness of cities to be bicycle-friendly. It focuses on the socioeconomic and urban characteristics that have to be present in a city for cycling to be adopted as a primary mode of transport. Through statistical analysis of 20 bicycle-friendly cities, the paper identifies the main requirements for urban cycling. Finally, it evaluates the readiness of Egyptian cities to become bicycle-friendly.
... Examples of using the concept of motility at various levels of abstraction range from the study of the urban implications of the mobility turn on Western cities as presented in Kaufmann (2011), down to the analysis of the determinants of modal choice of individuals (e.g. Flamm et al., 2014;De Witte et al., 2013). This in turn requires that researchers ensure clear definition of the scope of research and level of abstraction as well as definition of the actor studied (individual, group or institution, etc) in the introduction of any motility-based research and analysis. ...
Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht die tatsächliche und potenzielle Mobilität von Kindern aus einer informellen Siedlungsstruktur in einer Megacity des globalen Südens am Fall Ezbet El-Hagganas im Großraum Kairos; die Entwicklung von Mobilitätsgewohnheiten in der Kindheitsphase und bezieht sich dabei nicht nur auf Kinder als Nutzer, sondern berücksichtigt zudem deren unmittelbares soziales Umfeld und den gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kontext. Der theoretische Rahmen für die Untersuchung der Mobilität von Kindern basiert auf Icek Ajzens Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens sowie auf Vincent Kaufmanns Konzeptualisierung des Motilitätsbegriffes. Primärdaten wurden in einer Feldstudie und in Fokusgruppen erhoben. Die Ergebnisse deuteten auf eine hohe Prävalenz der unabhängigen Mobilität von Kindern (child independent mobility, CIM) auf deren am häufigsten zu bewältigenden Strecke (zur Schule) hin, zunächst durch nicht motorisierte Formen der Verkehrsteilnahme, aber weitgehend auch mit Hilfe von verschiedenen formellen wie informellen Nahverkehrsmitteln. Es wurden sozio-kulturelle und sozialpsychologische Einflussfaktoren seitens sowohl Kindern als auch ihren Eltern identifiziert, die die Verkehrsteilnahme von Kindern hemmen oder befördern können. Gleichermaßen wurden hemmende Faktoren untersucht. Die Akzeptanz des Radfahrens von Kindern wurde als Fallbeispiel für unerschlossenes Mobilitätspotenzial untersucht und deutet auf die Prävalenz sozialpsychologischer Faktoren hin, die Entscheidungsfaktoren rationaler und praktischer Natur entgegenstehen und die die Verkehrsmittelnutzung von Kindern mindern; hier benannt als Nutzungslücke (appropriation gap). Die Ergebnisse wurden schließlich in Zusammenhang mit dem Konzept der Verkehrsteilnahme gestellt und erlauben die Diskussion von Implikationen für die politische Ebene und für den Diskurs von Mobilität in benachteiligten Gruppen der Gesellschaft.
... I. Bicycle transport comes short in competing with motorized transport in long distance trips. One solution can be integrating bicycles into public transport (Flamm et al., 2014;Krizek and Stonebraker, 2011;Wang and Liu, 2013). Some European cities are leading in paving the way for coexistence of environment for both bicycle and public transport. ...
Publiczny transport zbiorowy oraz transport rowerowy postrzegane są jako zrównoważone alternatywy dla miejskich podróży samochodem. Narzędziem do zwiększenia popularności tych form transportu jest ich integracja w modelu bike-and-ride, polegającym na łączeniu przejazdu rowerem i środkiem transportu zbiorowego w ramach tej samej podróży. Jednym z istotnych aspektów tego modelu jest możliwość przewozu roweru w pojeździe (autobus, tramwaj). Taki sposób przemieszczania się nie tylko zwiększa zasięg podróży, ale stanowi również ważne rozwiązanie w sytuacji awaryjnej potrzeby przewozu roweru, gdy rowerzysta z różnych przyczyn nie ma możliwości kontynuacji jazdy na rowerze. Kluczowe dla transferu rowerów w innych pojazdach są jednak zasady przewozowe stosowane przez lokalnych operatorów transportu zbiorowego. Za cel pracy przyjęto analizę zapisów regulaminów przewozowych transportu w zakresie możliwości przewozu rowerów w pojazdach (autobusach, trolejbusach, tramwajach lub metrze). W artykule przeanalizowano 55 miast, dokonując porównania między krajami Europy Zachodniej (Danią i Holandią) a krajami Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej (Polską, Czechami i Słowacją). W badaniu wykazano duże zróżnicowanie w zakresie kompletności i restrykcyjności zapisów umożliwiających przewóz rowerów w pojazdach transportu publicznego. Oceniono jednak, że w niektórych przypadkach zasady przewozu są bardziej surowe w Europie Zachodniej niż w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, co może wynikać z większego ruchu rowerowego w miastach tej części kontynentu i potrzeby wprowadzenia odpowiednich ograniczeń. Bicycles in public transport vehicles – a study of transport policies in selected European cities Public collective transport and cycling are seen as sustainable alternatives to urban car travel. A tool to increase the popularity of these forms of transport is their integration in the bike-and-ride model, consisting in combining cycling and public transport within the same journey. One important aspect of this model is the option to carry a bicycle on a public transport vehicle. Such a combination not only increases the range of journeys, but is also an important solution in an emergency situation when the cyclist is unable to continue cycling for various reasons. The transport rules applied by local public transport operators are crucial for the transfer of bikes on other vehicles. The aim of the study was to analyse the provisions of the public transport regulations concerning the possibility of carrying bikes on board the vehicles (buses, trolleybuses, trams, or underground). The article analysed the transport policies of 55 cities, making comparisons between Western European countries (Denmark and the Netherlands) and Central and Eastern European countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia). The study showed a wide variation in the completeness and restrictiveness of provisions allowing for the carriage of bicycles on public transport vehicles. However, it was assessed that in some cases, the carriage rules are stricter in Western Europe than in Central and Eastern Europe, which may be due to the higher cycling traffic in the cities in this part of the continent and the need for relevant restrictions.
As the population of urban centers grows, there is a significant challenge of adjusting the transportation needs of urban mobility, as well as pursuing environmental protection strategies and ensuring social inclusion. The major bottleneck of urban mobility includes the constant traffic congestion in major cities because of excessive use of private cars. Developing an accessible, attractive transportation system that caters to people's individual mobility needs and preferences is one possible solution to these problems. It is important to have a coordinated system connecting the various modes of transportation so that people's homes and destinations can be reached with ease. The first and last miles of commuters, which are the weakest linkages in the transportation network, should be developed first before the system can be integrated. Shared mobility which involves using a shared vehicle (car, bike, scooter, etc.) often serves as a first or last mile connection to other modes of transportation such as public transit. Understanding the factors that influence the adoption of shared mobility services is crucial to ensuring that they become a significant component of the urban mobility system. This paper provides an overview of existing and emerging last mile solutions, particularly in the concept of shared mobility. The objective of this study is to add and enrich knowledge in the area of shared mobility in bridging the last mile toward an integrated mobility system.
Transit agencies around the country have made significant investments since the late 1990s to provide improved service to cyclist-transit users (CTUs), that is, transit riders who bring bicycles with them by using bicycle racks installed on buses. Use of these bus bicycle racks appears to vary significantly from transit system to transit system. It is unclear, however, what specific factors contribute most to bicycles-on-bus boardings (BoBBs). Using multi-variate regression analysis and a detailed data set of 2008-2011 BoBBs for Northeast Ohio's Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), this study compared daily BoBBs to general ridership (measured by unlinked passenger trips) in light of key weather, transit service, and travel cost variables. Rates of BoBBs rose during the study's time period and were strongly associated with weather conditions, though even in wet and cold weather, dozens of transit users traveled with their bicycles. To a lesser extent, BoBBs are also associated with transit service levels and travel costs.
In the light of growing societal interest for climate change adaptation and mitigation, insights into the meaning of weather conditions for travel behaviours—particularly walking and cycling—have become very important. Recently, various studies from transport, health and biometeorological disciplines have touched upon the relevance of weather for daily activities and travel, yet a review and critical assessment of the existing knowledge are lacking. Hence, the aim of this review is first to bring together these contributions and provide a systematic and comprehensive overview concerning the impact of weather conditions on daily travel activities. Second, the methodological, contextual and behavioural backgrounds of the studies will be discussed. The major conclusion is that the existing studies present an incomplete and fragmented picture of the impact of weather on travel behaviour, which makes effective planning for climate change a harsh job. In the conclusions, some lines for future research will be recommended.
In the pursuit of sustainable mobility policy makers are giving more attention to cycling. The potential of cycling is shown in countries like the Netherlands, where cycling covers 25 % of all person trips. However, the effect of policy interventions on cycling demand is difficult to measure, not least caused by difficulties to control for changing context variables like weather conditions. According to several authors weather has a strong influence on cycling demand, but quantitative studies about the relationship are scarce. We therefore further explored this relationship, with the aim of contributing to the development of a generic demand model with which trend and coincidence in bicycle flows might be unraveled. The study is based on time-series between 1987 and 2003 of daily bicycle flows, collected on 16 cycle paths near two cities in the Netherlands. The regression analyses show that, not surprisingly, recreational demand is much more sensitive to weather than utilitarian demand. Most daily fluctuations (80 %) are described by weather conditions, and no less than 70 % of the remaining variation is locally constrained. The regression can therefore mainly be improved by incorporating path specific, as yet unknown, variables. We used the regression results to calculate weather-inclusive bicycle flow predictions and found indications of a downward trend in recreational demand. This trend has been off-set in the observed flows by more favorable weather conditions over the years considered.
This paper provides an overview of bike-transit integration in large American and Canadian cities. It begins with an analysis of national trends in bike-and-ride programs such as the provision of bike racks on buses, accommodation of bikes on rail vehicles, and bike parking at rail stations and bus stops. Most of the paper, however, is devoted to case studies of bike-transit integration in six large American cities (San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, Washington, and New York) and two Canadian cities (Vancouver and Toronto). Much progress has been made over the past decade in coordinating cycling with public transport, but the demand for bikeand- ride far exceeds the supply of facilities in some cities. More funding, in particular, is needed to provide more secure, sheltered bike parking at rail stations and to increase bike-carrying capacity on rail vehicles.
In response to the environmental, economic, and social costs associated with overreliance on the automobile, planners and transportation professionals are promoting sustainable alternatives such as walking, cycling, and public transit, either as single modes or in combination. It has been argued that the marriage between cycling and transit presents opportunities for synergy by enlarging catchment areas of transit stations while drawing in new users to both of these green modes. However, because of the marginality of combining cycling and transit in North America, there is a shortage of reliable empirical studies in this area. The present study addressed this gap through an analysis of travel behavior and preferences related to cycle-transit (C-T) integration. An online survey was conducted in the region of Montreal, Canada, during the summer of 2010. The questionnaire included a section on Montreal's public bicycle sharing system, Bixi (bicycle taxi), and its potential for integration with transit. Three current or potential C-T user groups were identified through a factor-cluster analysis: current parking bike-and-riders, Bixi users, and car drivers. Bringing a bicycle on transit was the preferred form of integration; however, scenarios involving bicycle parking (or using a public bicycle) were likely to be used more regularly. To accommodate the greatest number of bicycle-transit trips, measures that facilitated parking at transit stops and those that enabled the bringing of bicycles on board transit vehicles were recommended in tandem.
Cycling continues to increase in popularity and garner attention for the ability to achieve environmental, health, and congestion-mitigation benefits for communities. Although the growth in both cycling and transit may be in small part attributed to bicycle and transit integration, the growth is difficult to measure. Which of the variety of available strategies for bicycle and transit integration—such as increased bicycle parking at stops, increased bicycle capacity on transit vehicles, and shared bicycle infrastructure—is more cost-effective? Which strategies will yield the highest number of cycle transit users? To fill a void in the literature about integrating bicycling and transit, four common bicycle and transit integration strategies were described and assessed. A framework was developed for evaluating strategies, and a preliminary cost-effectiveness assessment was conducted. Cost-effectiveness comprises costs and cyclists' preferences for each strategy. Preferences were gathered through stated-preference surveys from focus groups in five case study communities and calculated according to the analytic hierarchy process, a multicriterion decision-making tool. Transit with a bicycle aboard was most preferred by cyclists, whereas results of the cost-effectiveness measure suggest that enhancing bicycle parking at a transit stop proved most cost-effective when compared with the most common bicycle onboard transit configuration: front-mounted bicycle racks on buses. The limited growth potential for bicycles aboard transit requires consideration of alternatives. The overall importance that cyclists assigned to security suggested considerable room for creative solutions to improve the favorability of the other strategies while addressing some inherent capacity limitations of the most popular strategy: transporting the bicycle with the rider on transit.
When effectively integrated with transit services, bicycling may achieve various environmental, health, and congestion-mitigation benefits for communities. A successful marriage between the two will most likely result in increasing (a) the catchment area and subsequent patronage of transit, (b) the efficiency of transit, and (c) the overall demand for cycling. A core problem, however, exists in that the predominant approach for integrating bicycling and transit vehicles frequently runs against capacity restraints. Effectively integrating bicycling and transit requires analysis of a broad range of alternatives that consider the travel patterns and needs of individuals and accompanying urban form characteristics. To fill a void in the literature concerning integrating bicycling and transit, this paper surveys existing knowledge about the two modes, describes three innovative initiatives that show promise in addressing capacity limitations, and sketches an analysis framework for communities and transit agencies to maximize the integration of bicycling and transit. A preliminary index is developed to predict cycling transit user (CTU) generation at transit stops. Factors identified in the literature as important in determining the share of CTUs (i.e., transit mode, location in the urban fabric, access and egress distance, and trip purpose) are nonuniform among communities, indicating that solutions must be tailored to fit local circumstances. Although the literature has traditionally focused on bicycles aboard transit, real gains will most likely be realized through initiatives such as bicycle stations and bicycles at egress locations for use with egress trips. Analysis relying on robust cost-effectiveness could help transit agencies with increased integration of bicycling and transit.
Bike-and-ride, or the combined use of bicycle and public transport for one trip, is a multimodal alternative for the car. This paper discusses the use of bike-and-ride in three countries with widely differing bicycle cultures and infrastructures: the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The share of the bicycle in access trips is comparable to general levels of bicycle ridership in each country, but only for train services and other fast modes of public transport. Strong similarities are found in the characteristics of bike-and-ride trips and users, in terms of travel distances, travel motives, and the impact of car availability. The majority of bike-and-ride users travels between 2 and 5 km to a public transport stop, with longer access distances reported for faster modes of public transport. Work and education are the main travel motives, with the first dominating the faster modes and the second the slower modes of public transport. Car availability hardly influences the choice for a combined use of bicycle and train, but strongly affects the levels of bike-and-ride for slower modes of transport.
When effectively integrated with transit services, bicycling may achieve various environmental, health, and congestion-mitigation benefits for communities. A successful marriage between the two will most likely result in increasing (a) the catchment area and subsequent patronage of transit, (b) the efficiency of transit, and (c) the overall demand for cycling. A core problem, however, exists in that the predominant approach for integrating bicycling and transit vehicles frequently runs against capacity restraints. Effectively integrating bicycling and transit requires analysis of a broad range of alternatives that consider the travel patterns and needs of individuals and accompanying urban form characteristics. To fill a void in the literature concerning integrating bicycling and transit, this paper surveys existing knowledge about the two modes, describes three innovative initiatives that show promise in addressing capacity limitations, and sketches an analysis framework for communities and transit agencies to maximize the integration of bicycling and transit. A preliminary index is developed to predict cycling transit user (CTU) generation at transit stops. Factors identified in the literature as important in determining the share of CTUs (i.e., transit mode, location in the urban fabric, access and egress distance, and trip purpose) are nonuniform among communities, indicating that solutions must be tailored to fit local circumstances. Although the literature has traditionally focused on bicycles aboard transit, real gains will most likely be realized through initiatives such as bicycle stations and bicycles at egress locations for use with egress trips. Analysis relying on robust cost-effectiveness could help transit agencies with increased integration of bicycling and transit.
Mobility hubs are major transit access points and an integrated part of multi-modal transportation planning efforts. For the implementation of bicycle infrastructure improvements around mobility hubs a better understanding of bicycle access distances is needed. Using responses from on-board travel surveys in three U.S. metropolitan areas, this study found that median bicycle access distances to transit stations are within the buffer radii suggested for community hubs (1 mile) and gateway hubs (2 miles) in long-range transportation plans. Multiple regression analysis identified several street and transit network characteristics affecting bicycle access distance, which should be considered when planning infrastructure improvements.
When effectively integrated with transit services, considerable room exists for bicycling to realize various benefits to communities. A successful marriage between bicycling and transit will likely increase the use and efficiency of both modes. A core problem, however, exists in that the predominant approach for integrating bicycles and transit—bicycles aboard transit vehicles—frequently runs up against capacity restraints. Integrating bicycling and transit requires analysis of a broad range of alternatives that considers both the travel patterns and needs of individuals but also accompanying urban form characteristics. What are the most cost effective strategies likely to generate the largest number of cyclists accessing transit?To aid in developing a framework to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different strategies to integrate transit and bicycling this project: (1) reviews the state of the knowledge, (2) proposes an analysis framework for communities and transit agencies to consider in efforts to maximize the integration of bicycling and transit, (3) conducts focus groups with cyclists from five case study communities to gauge preferences for bicycle and transit integration strategies, and (4) develops a preliminary application to evaluate four bicycle and transit integration strategies based on focus group discussions and use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). These evaluation measures are applied to five communities.A CTU index provides an initial attempt to understand transit stops that have a higher likelihood to attract CTUs. The Analytic Hierarchy Process ranked cyclists’ preferences for four bicycle and transit integration strategies in order of preference: (1) “Bike ON transit” (transporting the owner’s bicycle aboard( inside or outside) the transit vehicle) (0.471), (2) “Bike TO transit” (using and parking the owner’s bicycle at a transit access location) (0.185), (3) “Shared bike” (sharing a bicycle, which would be based at either the transit access or egress point) (0.185), and (4) “Two bike” (using an owner’s two bicycles at the access and egress location) (0.159). Results of the cost effectiveness assessment suggest that “Bike ON transit” ranked most cost effective overall, followed by “Bike to transit,” “Two bike,” and “Shared bike” strategies.
As bikes-on-bus (BOB) programs become popular and demand increases, the typical rack capacity of only two bicycles per bus can limit the integration of bicycles and transit. The purpose of this project was to conduct a return on investment analysis of BOB programs, and to develop recommendations on how transit agencies can overcome rack capacity limitations. Fifteen transit agencies and over 200 BOB users were surveyed. Missing data, specifically the number of BOB boardings, made a rigorous return on investment analysis impracticable. However, the findings showed that transit agencies generally view the initial investment and operational costs of BOB programs to be minimal compared to the return on the investment. The BOB user survey results showed that BOB programs attract new patrons, encourage increased use of transit, and expand the transit service area. When faced with rack capacity limitations, the transit agencies have added three-bike capacity racks or have experimented with allowing bicycles in the bus. While added rack capacity and an effective bikes-in-bus (BIB) policy can improve the integration of bicycles and transit, it is recommended that transit agencies invest in a bike-to-transit strategy. The survey results showed that BOB users tend to bicycle a greater distance from their residence to the bus stop than between the bus stop and the work site. Therefore, this strategy is centered on the provision of bicycle parking at bus stops and transfer centers to accommodate BOB users that need their bicycle on only one side of their transit trip. Bicycle parking at bus stops, specifically in residential areas, can ease the impact of rack capacity limitations and maximize the potential of the bicycle as a means to access transit.
Perceptions of Bicycle-Friendly Policy Impacts on Accessibility to Transit Services: The First and Last Mile Bridge. Mineta Transportation Institute
- B Flamm
- C Rivasplata
Flamm, B., Rivasplata, C., 2014. Perceptions of Bicycle-Friendly Policy Impacts on
Accessibility to Transit Services: The First and Last Mile Bridge. Mineta
Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA.
A Return on Investment Analysis of Bikes-on-Bus Programs Center for Urban Transportation Research of the University of South Florida Assessment of bicycle service areas around transit stations
- C Hagelin
Hagelin, C., 2005. A Return on Investment Analysis of Bikes-on-Bus Programs. Center for Urban Transportation Research of the University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Hochmair, H.H., 2013. Assessment of bicycle service areas around transit stations. Int. J. Sustain. Transp., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.719998, in press.
Integration of Bicycles and Transit
- R Schneider
Schneider, R., 2005. Integration of Bicycles and Transit. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Multi-modal Urban Transport: Integrating Non-motorized and Bus Transport. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation
- E Adjei
Adjei, E., 2010. Multi-modal Urban Transport: Integrating Non-motorized and Bus
Transport. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth
Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Car-Free in Cleveland: The Guide to Public Transit and Transportation Alternatives in Greater Cleveland
- Alt-Trans Cleveland
Alt-Trans Cleveland, 2000. Car-Free in Cleveland: The Guide to Public Transit and
Transportation Alternatives in Greater Cleveland. EcoCity Cleveland, Cleveland,
Ohio.