421-401 Techniques of Research and

Investigation

Written Report

Combining Bicycles and Public Transport

Julian James ReynoldsStudent Number 91619

The University of Melbourne

February 5, 2005

Second VersionFirst Version - May 20th 2004

SupervisorDr Russell Thompson

Senior LecturerThe University of Melbourne

1

Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Topic Description 5

2.1 What is Multi-modal Travel? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Bike and Public Transport Multi-modal Travel . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Literature Survey 8

3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 Why Should Dual-Mode Bicycle Transport be Encouraged? . . 8

3.2.1 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2.2 Pollution and Land Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2.3 Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2.4 Making Better Use of Public Transport Facilities . . . 113.2.5 Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.3 Attracting Commuters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.3.1 Factors Affecting Bicycle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.3.2 The Fear of Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.3.3 Danger on the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.3.4 Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.3.5 Significance of Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.3.6 Conclusions on Factors Affecting Bicycle Usage . . . . 23

3.4 Catchment Area of Public Transport Stops . . . . . . . . . . . 253.4.1 Walking Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.4.2 Automobile Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.4.3 Bicycle Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.4.4 A Comparison of the Bicycle Access Distance Sugges-

tions in the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.4.5 Advantages to Public Transport Operators . . . . . . . 313.4.6 Conclusions on Station Access Modes . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.5 Accessing the Station or Stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.5.1 Linking Bicycle Routes and Paths to the Station . . . . 353.5.2 Getting Into and Around the Station . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.6 Bicycle Parking for Dual-Mode Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.6.1 Level of Security Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.6.2 Automated and Guarded Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2

3.6.3 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.6.4 Provision for Egress from Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.6.5 The Costs of Bicycle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483.6.6 Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.6.7 Various Parking Types in use at Australian Stations . . 503.6.8 Security of Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.7 Bicycles on Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.7.1 Bicycles on Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.7.2 The Express Bicycle Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.7.3 Bicycles on Trains and Trams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.8 Bicycle Hire Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573.9 Promotion of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.10 Management of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603.11 Factors Affecting the Implementation of Dual-Mode Bicycle

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4 Discussion 64

5 Recommendations for Future Research 67

5.1 Australian Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675.1.1 Research Material Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675.1.2 A Review of the Brisbane Bike-on-Bus Program . . . . 685.1.3 A Review of the Progress Made by the Australian Cy-

cling Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685.1.4 External Bicycle Carrying Facilities for Trams . . . . . 685.1.5 Commuter Bicycle Sales in Australia . . . . . . . . . . 695.1.6 Institutional Impediments in Australia . . . . . . . . . 695.1.7 Station Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.2 Wider Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705.2.1 Factors Affecting Cycle Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705.2.2 Catchment Area for Bicycle Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.2.3 Bicycle Access Transport Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6 Acknowledgements 73

7 References 74

3

Abstract

This report investigates the current literature available on the com-bination bicycles and public transport (known as dual mode transport)as part of an overall transit strategy. Increasing the proportion of dualmode bicycle trips within a transport system was found to have signif-icant benefits in terms of reducing the pollution, congestion and costsassociated with mass automobile travel. It was found that there are alarge number of factors affecting and impeding the use of bicycles forutilitarian trips. Particularly important factors are the fear of theftand danger on the road as well as the significant distances that manypeople need to travel. However adding a public transport componentto a journey can overcome the problems of distance that limit cyclingwhen used on its own. Dual-mode bicycle trips can also have sig-nificant advantages for public transport operators by increasing theirservice area, reducing their expenditure on costly park-and-ride fa-cilities or even reducing the number of stops and routes required toservice a population.

However, the implementation of dual-mode bicycle is not withoutdifficulty. Planners need to take a whole system approach and developall aspects of the door-to-door journey. Facilities to park bicycles,while important, will not be effective unless provision is made to enablecyclists to travel to, into and within the transit station.

An investigation of the literature on systems that allow bicycles tobe carried with the cyclist on public transport vehicles was also carriedout. Both these systems, and bike hire linked to public transportation,were found to have the beneficial effect of allowing travel by bicyclefor both access to and egress from transit services.

The factors effecting the implementation, management and pro-motion of dual-mode bicycle system were also investigated in this lit-erature review. Political and financial constraints are the main im-pediments to the implementation of dual-mode systems, rather thantechnical problems.

Some avenues for future research on dual-mode bicycle systems arealso recommended in this report. This includes research specific to theAustralian situation, as well as more general research.

4

1 Introduction

This is a report written as part of 421-401 Research and Techniques of In-vestigation at the University of Melbourne during semester one, 2004. Themajority of the report is a review of the current literature on combining bi-cycle and public transportation. A discussion of the main conclusions of theliterature survey and recommendations for future research are also included.

The topic is discussed as it applies generally to transportation systemsaround the world, but there is an emphasis to the transport network ofMelbourne in Australia.

2 Topic Description

This report focuses on the combination of bicycles and public transport aspart of an overall city transportation system. The combination of a bicyclewith public transport is often referred to as a ‘dual-mode’ or ‘multi-modal’method of transport.

2.1 What is Multi-modal Travel?

Multi-modal travel is transportation using more than one mode. The term‘mode’ describes the type of transport used by the traveller (or freight) duringeach section of the journey. Walking, travelling by car or a train are allexamples of different modes of travel.

The most common form of passenger multimodal travel is a walk-ride-walk trip. This involves a walking leg to reach a vehicle, a trip on the vehicle,and finally another walking leg from the vehicle to the ultimate destination.

The combination of the different modes of travel into a ‘chain’ of linkedtrips is the hallmark of a multi-modal trip. However, just as a chain is onlyas strong as its weakest link, if one of the linked trips fails to work properlythe entire trip will be affected.

It could be argued that all private vehicle trips are multi-modal. A personhas to walk to get to their vehicle at the start of the trip, and walk againto finish their journey after parking the vehicle. However, the walking legsare usually ignored unless they form a significant part of the chain in termsof time or distance, or have a significant impact upon the comfort or cost ofthe entire trip.

5

Most trips involving public transportation will also involve a significantwalking (or other mode) component. Unlike the typical short walk to aprivate car, reaching public transport by foot is usually a significant part ofthe entire journey.

Having to link with public transport modes reduces the speed and comfortof a journey, compared with travelling by private car. Infrequent or unreli-able services, unpleasant waiting areas and reduced fleixibility can lessen theconviencence and attractiveness of a multi-modal public transport trip. Like-wise, the time to reach the ultimate destination from the end of the transitleg of the trip, the egress section, can greatly effect the usability of publictransport. Such problems do not generally apply to private vehicle trips, astravellers are able to complete the journey all in one go, with out having tolink multiple modes.

2.2 Bike and Public Transport Multi-modal Travel

The combined use of a bicycle and public transport is a prime example ofmulti-modal travel. Involving a significant portion of travel on two separatemodes, a typical ‘bike-and-ride’ journey will consist of:

1. Travel by bicycle

2. A transfer from the bicycle to a public transport vehicle

3. Travel on the public transport vehicle

4. Egress from the public transport vehicle

5. Travel to the ultimate destination by bicycle or by another transportmode

(Glasson 1984, page 180) divides dual mode bicycle travel into two basicforms:

1. The Park and Ride version - The bicycle is parked at a terminal, stationor stop where the cyclist transfers to or from the motorised publicvehicle

2. The ‘piggy-back’ version - The bicycle is carried on the motorised ve-hicle with the cyclist

6

2.3 Scope

There is a significant body of literature devoted to the design of generalbicycle facilities. Bicycle paths, on road cycle lanes, general bicycle parking,bicycle usage and bicycle safety are subjects that have been well researchedin Australia and overseas.

These subjects have relevance for bicycle trips to a public transport stop.However, this investigation will only examine such subjects as they directlyrelate to dual mode trips. As an example: the connection of bicycle paths toa station is within the scope of this investigation, while the general design ofbicycle paths is not.

7

3 Literature Survey

3.1 Overview

Much of the research reviewed in this report is from America and the UnitedKingdom. It is only within the last twenty years that combining bicycles withpublic transport has become a topic of research in English speaking countries.Before 1980, non-motorised transport was mostly ignored by researchers, asmost of the Western world concentrated on transportation based around theprivate automobile.

It was not until the Geelong Bike Plan Experiment, beginning in 1978,that the bicycle was seriously planned for in Australia. Prior to this, “no onehad ever tried to modify an existing major city for the use of cyclist; no onehad apparently even considered that there was a need to do so.”(Sach 1984,page 78).

This helps to explain the lack of Australian specific research into thistopic. However, much of the research done in the United States of Americacould be applied to the Australian transport system. Australia has followed asimilar path of development to America, with low density suburbs a commonfeature of cities in both countries. The development of the transport systemsin both Australia and America has centred around the private automobile,due mainly to the spread out nature of our cities.

In contrast, Japan and the Netherlands, as well as some other parts ofEurope, have placed less emphasis on the private car in the developmentof their transport policies and planning. Unfortunately, little of the origi-nal research that must have been done throughout the development of theJapanese and European systems is readily available in Australia. The major-ity of the literature surveyed in this report is about transferring the principlesof the Japanese and Dutch systems to other countries as a way of reducingcar congestion.

3.2 Why Should Dual-Mode Bicycle Transport be En-

couraged?

Many transportation systems in Western countries are heavily car dependant.To reach many places and conduct basic everyday tasks, such as groceryshopping or commuting to work, people need a car. Many transportationdecision makers see this dependance on the motor vehicle as a sign of a

8

modern society.However, alternate models for the modern transport system exist. The

Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan “clearly demonstrate the importantrole that nonmotorized transportation can play in modern transport systems,especially for short trips and for access to public transport services” (Replogle1991).

The use of non-motorized transport for short trips, and in conjunctionwith public transit for longer trips, can have significant benefits to travellers,employers and society at large.

Travellers can benefit from the reduced costs of non-motorized transport.Regular, transport-related, exercise can also improve the traveler’s health.

For employers, non motorized transport use amongst their staff can havea number of benefits. A fit workforce, that gets regular exercise throughwalking or cycling, will generally perform better and have lower rates ofstaff absenteeism. Less land is required by companies encouraging public ornon motorized transport, as they do not need to provide space for staff carparking. Widespread adoption of non motorized or pulbic transport reducestraffic congestion which can provide significant benefits to organisations, par-ticularly those involved in the transport industry. Companies that activelyencourage staff to use transport other than private cars to get to work canbenefit from an improved image. The provision of bicycle facilities and publictransport tickets can be part of a wider ‘green’ corporate image.

At a societal level the energy efficiency, reductions in oil imports, noiseand air pollution and increased utilisation of public transport infrastructurecan be a significant advantage of increasing levels on non-motorized trans-port. (Mathieson, Groves & Weatherstone 1984, p122-123)

3.2.1 Energy Efficiency

Bicycle travel is exceptionally energy efficient. It has the least energy con-sumption per passenger mile of any form of transport, including walking.“Cycling consumes 35 calories per passenger mile, compared with 100 forwalking, and 1,860 for a car with one occupant” (McClintock 1992b, p6).However, the bicycle is generally only practical for short trips. While a tripof 50kms is no problem in a car, undertaking such a trip by bicycle is outsidethe realms of possibility for most people.

Dual-mode trips can expand this efficient travel beyond the range of bi-cycle travel alone. (Bouwman 2002) found that for trips longer than 10

9

kilometres, combining rail and bicycle travel provides the most energy effi-cient journey. For trips of less than 10 kilometres using a bicycle is the mostefficient option.

3.2.2 Pollution and Land Consumption

The pollution problems caused by private motor vehicles are well docu-mented. “In an environmentally ideal world, we would live within walk-ing/cycling distance of our workplace (and) we would shop locally” (Carruthers& Lawson 1995). However, with the advent of the private car, we now seekgreater choice as to where we live, shop, work and play. The increased mo-bility offered by the automobile comes at a cost of increased noise and airpollution.

Many cities have tried to reduce private car usage by encouraging park-and-ride trips (see also section 3.4.2). Consisting of a drive to the transit stop,and then a transfer to public transport, these trips are a way of increasingpublic transport ridership and reducing traffic congestion within central buis-ness districts. However, the predominantly short automobile trips involvedin park-and-ride trips have little effect on reducing pollution and greenhousegases. “Automobile park-and-ride trips involve cold start vehicle operation,with associated pollution emission and fuel use rates several times higherthan the average for all automobile travel, resulting in almost negligibleemissions reductions from park-and-ride, when all factors are considered”(Replogle 1993). Likewise, the (?, p1) suggests that short trips contributemuch of the pollution caused by cars in Australian cities.

Air pollution is one obvious consequence of high levels of automobile use,but noise pollution from traffic can also be a significant problem in residentialareas of cities. Bicycle transport does not create such problems.

In addition, car parking facilities take up considerable amounts of space,usually in the heart of cities where land values are high. Bicycle parking ismuch more space efficient. A single car parking spot takes up enough spaceto provide parking for 10 bicycles (McClintock 2002).

3.2.3 Congestion

Traffic congestion is becoming more and more of a problem for transport plan-ners as car usage increases. “The greatest congestion from the Australian carfleet is caused by the increase in the total resident population and its ongoing

10

concentration in large urban areas where most people have to commute longdistances and have poor access to public transport” (Parker 2003, p6).

In areas with high traffic congestion, using a bicycle, particularly forshort trips, is very competitive in terms of journey time (McClintock 2002).While not able to reach the same speeds as an automobile on the open road,a bicycle is a relatively fast mode of transport in congested urban centres.Average speeds on most car journeys to work “are often less than 20km/h. Itis therefore often the case, especially for journeys of less than 3km (2 miles),that the bicycle can be the fastest means of transport in busy urban traffic.”(McClintock 1992b, p6)

McClintock (1992a, p69) also suggests that park-and-ride may actuallyincrease car usage, and hence congestion problems. “Although park-and-ride is promoted as a very important way of luring drivers from their carsexperience shows that it may even attract people who previously made thewhole of their journey by public transport.”

Park-and-ride stations also do little to reduce traffic congestion. Insteadof congestion on the major arterial roads, (Herman, Komanoff, Orcutt &Perry 1999) suggest that the park-and-ride approach moves the traffic jamsto local stations and local streets. Similarly, car parking capacity problemsare moved out of the city centres, and into areas around railway stations.

3.2.4 Making Better Use of Public Transport Facilities

Many cities have extensive amounts of public transport infrastructure, partic-ularly in the form of railway stations and lines. However, with the movementof “population and employment growth from dense urban centres to suburbsand small cities”(Replogle 1984) this infrastructure has become less effective.It is more difficult for public transport to operate services in spread-out sub-urban areas. This is a particular problem when the infrastructure is designedprimarily for accessing a dense central area.

The Melbourne train network is characteristic of this design, with manyradial routes centering on the CBD. It is relatively easy and quick to traveltowards or away from the CBD. Using public transport, on the other hand,to travel around the city and across suburbs is primarily by bus, and isneither as quick or convenient. Low-density areas can be more easily servedby public transport operators if bicycle access is encouraged to expand thecatchment area of stations and stops. Bicycles can also help to fill in thegaps between routes or assist in cross-town travel. In the Netherlands, the

11

railway authority views the combination of train and bicycle as ideal. “Inorder to increase ridership, subsidised bicycle parking and rentals are offered,and getting to and from the train by bicycle is encouraged” (Brog, Erl, Otto& Sammer 1984)

3.2.5 Economics

Riding a bicycle, as well as being environmentally friendly, is inexpensive.(Rwebangira 2001) finds that bicycling costs only US$0.02 per passengerkilometre, compared to US$0.30 per passenger kilometre for car transport.Similarly, (The US Department of Transportation 1992) finds that the costsare US$0.03 per km for cycling and US$0.35 per km for driving a car.

It is not just in running costs that automobiles are more expensive.(RACV 2003) shows that the new car with the cheapest running costs, a2 door Hyundai Getz (AU 35.36 cents per kilometre), has a purchase priceof $AU13,990. This compares to the $AU200-$AU500 that cyclists pay foran entry level bicycle in Melbourne stores.

(Moriarty & Beed 1985) suggest that “the structure of car travel costs,with high fixed costs and relatively low out-of-pocket operating costs” tendsto encourage car use for existing car owners. If you have already made thesignificant investment in a car, the additional cost of using it for a single tripseems quite low. Hence, a car will get used for trips that could easily bemade by a different mode, simply because it is there.

The high costs of providing car parking spaces for park-and-ride access topublic transport is mentioned by a number of publications. To construct a carparking space costs between $US2,000 and $US20,000 (Hook 1994). Whilepark-and-ride systems for cars are being developed in the Netherlands, “theyare accorded the lowest priority of all transit access modes because of lowcost-effectiveness.” (Replogle 1993) (p76)

The high costs associated with car dominated transport have a distincteffect on the cost of living and doing business. (Hook 1994) suggests that inAmerica $US5000 is paid directly by each employee to own and maintain acar for the trip to and from work. A further $US2,400 is paid indirectly intaxes to maintain the road infrastructure necessary for car commuting. “This$7,400/worker is reflected in the costs of all goods produced in the UnitedStates, albeit indirectly” (p110). In comparison, “Japanese workers...needonly to be paid about $600.00/year to cover their commuting costs” due tothe well developed bicycle and train systems.

12

The reduced levels of commuter vehicles on Japanese roads has had sig-nificant benefits for the transport of freight. “With passenger transportationrelying on bicycles and mass transit, Japan has been able to dedicate itsavailable road infrastructure primarily to trucking”(Hook 1994).

The high levels of bicycle and public transport use in Japan has far reach-ing economic effects. In 1990 the US spent 17.9% of its GNP on transporta-tion, with 9.5% consumed by private transportation. Japan spent just 10.79%of its GNP on transportation in 1985.

“It is in its role of minimizing the costs of the entire transportation systemand increasing the catchment area and hence the viability of the rail-basedmass transit system that non-motorized transportation has played a criticalrole in the competitiveness of the Japanese economy.” (Hook 1994)

13

3.3 Attracting Commuters

A British Automobile Association survey found that while 93% of motoristshad at some point in their lives learnt how to ride a bicycle, only 30% ofhave cycled within the last two years (Lawson, Snelson & Morris 1993, page555). A similar situation exists in Melbourne. The average rate of bicycleownership is 0.4 bicycles/person, but bicycles are only used for 2% of all tripsmade in Melbourne (VicRoads 1999).

So, given the large proportions of people who have access to and can usea bicycle, why are bicycles not used more widely? Subsequently, why is thecombination of bicycle and public transport not more widely used?

3.3.1 Factors Affecting Bicycle Use

The literature identifies a very wide range of factors that affect the use ofbicycles as a mode of transportation. (The US Department of Transportation1992) identifies three broad categories that affect a person’s willingness touse a bicycle:

• Personal and Subjective factors

• Objective factors

• Infrastructure factors

These categories are very wide ranging, and (The US Department ofTransportation 1992) goes on to further identify the individual factors:Personal and Subjective factors

• Distance

• Traffic Safety

• Convenience

• Cost

• Valuation of Time

• Valuation of Exercise

• Physical condition

14

• Family circumstances

• Habits

• Attitudes and Values

• Peer Group acceptance

Objective factors

• Climate

• Topography

Infrastructure factors

• Presence of Bicycle Facilities and Traffic conditions

• Access and Linkage

• Transport Alternatives

A similar listing of the various factors affecting bicycle use has also beenproduced by (McClintock 1992b), who adapted the earlier work done by(Bracher, Luda & Thiemann 1991).

Taking a quantitative approach, (Ashley & Banister 1988) used traveldata to model the journey to work. The research arrived at seven factorsthat had significance in whether journeys are made by bicycle:

• journey distance

• car ownership

• bus availability

• rainfall

• traffic

• hilliness

• social class of head of household

15

Figure 1: Decision Making Model for Bicycle Use (Lawson et al. 1993)

16

Figure 2: Decision Making Model for Bicycle Trips (The US Department ofTransportation 1992)

(Lawson et al. 1993) identified a full decision making model (figure 1),suggesting that bicycle ownership and maintenance are the first steps of adecision to cycle.

(The US Department of Transportation 1992) also identifies a model forthe decision to make a cycle trip (figure 2).

(Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants)1981, p56) seek to give us a snap shot of the typical person likely to convertfrom car travel to dual-mode services:

• The trip the individual is taking must be of some length, where fuelcosts become a factor

• The trip will involve severe traffic congestion giving rise to unpre-dictable delays, perceivable dangers and considerable irritation

• There are serious parking problems at the end of the trip

• The family is, ideally a single car family living in an area with poorlocal public transport, leading to pressure for the car to be availablefor others in the household

17

• The individual already owns a bicycle or is considering purchasing onefor recreational use

• The individual lives more than a six or seven minute walk from a railwaystation, but no more than a seven minute bike ride

• There are no steep hills on the way to and from the station

It seems clear that a large number of factors affect a person’s decisionwhether or not to cycle for everyday trips. As with any choice making,the relevance of each factor will depend very much on the attitudes of, andinfluences effecting, each individual.

It is hard to identify exactly which of these generic bicycle use factorsaffect dual-mode bicycle trips in particular. However, the factors described inthe following sections appear to be the most relevant. These particular factorsappear regularly in the literature, are argued as being particularly importantby some researchers, and appear the most applicable to the situation inMelbourne.

3.3.2 The Fear of Theft

(McClintock 1992b, pages 11-12) makes note of the link between bicycle theftrates and the level of bicycle use. Similarly (Parker 1979a) notes that “Fear oftheft is a major deterrent to bicycle users and has to be combatted otherwisethe potential of bicycle transportation will never be realised”.

Another paper by the same author shows the dramatic effect that theftcan have on the number of bicycles parked at railway stations (see figure3). While the theft rates where very low the numbers of parked bicyclescontinued to grow. However, as soon as theft levels increased significantly(in 1981) the number of parked bicycles declined rapidly. (Parker 1992)argues that the fear of theft is enough deter many people from bike-and-ridetransport and “usually results in the purchase of a second or third householdcar”. In Melbourne, while “other types of bicycle use have greatly increased”(Parker 1992), the risk of bicycle theft from railway stations has been themajor impediment to an increase in bike-and-ride trips.

A survey by the State Bicycle Committee of Victoria in 1979 also con-cluded that the risk of theft and damage to bicycles is of major concern todual mode travellers in Melbourne (Glasson 1984). “For most rail patrons the

18

Figure 3: The effect of bicycle theft on bicycle usage at Melbourne stations(Parker 1992)

19

theft of one bicycle is enough to destroy their commitment to train travel”(Parker 1992).

Based on a stated preference survey, (Taylor & Mahmasasani 1996) con-clude that one of the best incentives to promote bike and ride is the pro-vision of bicycle lockers or similar options to reduce the theft of bicycles.(Feldman 1981, page 66) supports this conclusion, finding that the provi-sion of secure bicycle storage facilities is that one improvement that wouldencourage 40.8% of passengers to cycle to the station.

The negative effect that bicycle theft has had on dual-mode bicycle usein many countries is not apparent in Japan. “Low rates of bicycle theft andcrime made it possible for Japanese bicyclists to leave their bicycles in anyopen area near station entrances without securing the bicycle to to a fixedobject, relying on nothing more for theft protection than a small metal lockthat prevents someone from casually wheeling the bike away.” (Replogle 1993,page 77). This lack of theft helps to explain why dual mode bicycle trips aremore prevelant in Japan than much of the rest of the world.

In stark contrast, in their study of 1000 British motorists which examinedwhy they do or do not use a bicycle for some trips, (Lawson et al. 1993)disagree with the rest of the literature on the significance of bicycle theft:“Although cycle theft is a great concern, it does not seem to act as a majordeterrent to cycle use” (p558). Similarly in their modelling of journey towork data (Ashley & Banister 1988) do not find theft or the availability ofparking to have much effect on the level of cycling.

However, (Lawson et al. 1993) do mention the increasing rates of cycletheft and that “Cyclists believe that there are insufficient facilities to securebicycle”. It may be that the high number of motorists who do not cycle (someseventy percent) included in Snelson and Morris’ study do not recognisebicycle theft as a particular obstacle to cycling. More than a quarter ofmotorists surveyed were not cycling because they own a car and significantnumbers believed cycling to be too dangerous or requiring too much effort.It may be that the threat of bicycle theft is not particularly important tothese motorists, compared to the other perceived negatives of travelling bybicycle.

This difference in the conclusions of (Lawson et al. 1993) and (Ashley& Banister 1988) about bicycle theft to other researchers may be due tothe difference characteristics of single mode bicycle trips and bike-and-ridetrips. Both (Lawson et al. 1993) and (Ashley & Banister 1988) investigatebicycle trips in general, rather than specifically dual mode trips. Many of

20

the studies supporting the view that bicycle theft rates and the availabilityof secure parking facilities affect bicycle usage ((Feldman 1981), (The USDepartment of Transportation 1993) and (Parker 1979a)) are concerned withbike-and-ride trips in particular. Bicycle parking at a transit stop or stationmay be particularly risky compared to bicycle parking at other locationssuch as places of employment. The large concentration of bicycles at transitstops and stations could make these locations more of a target for thieves.(Holladay 2002, page 116) notes that in many European countries bike-and-ride cyclists often use an older bike for trips to the station, using their betterbike for trips that don’t involve parking, or to locations with more secureparking.

3.3.3 Danger on the Road

Safety on the road is also an important factor affecting cycle use. Dual-modebicycle trips are possible only in areas with public transport. Such systemsgenerally exist only in major cities, which are usually heavily congested withcars. The perceived safety, or lack thereof, for cyclists using roads and otherfacilities to reach public transport is a significant factor in the decision tocycle.

(The US Department of Transportation 1993) identifies danger from autotraffic and lack of bike lanes or trails as significant impediments to widespreadcycle use. (Lawson et al. 1993) found the attitudes of drivers and pollutionfrom cars are the main disincentives to cycling. The threat of accidents wasa significant disincentive for leisure cyclists (people who do cycle, but as aleisure activity only) to use their bicycle for non-leisure trips.

In their study of factors affecting mass bicycle commuting (Everett &Spencer 1983) found that conflict high speed traffic is a significant obstacleto high levels of bicycle use.“The overwhelming majority of schools withmass bicycle commuting....have bicycle access separated from HSHVT (HighSpeed High Volume Traffic)”. However, other researchers do not agree withthese conclusions. (Faust 1983) suggests that (Everett & Spencer 1983) havegeneralised from that high-speed, high-vehicle traffic is a serious barrier, andthat the criteria for such a condition is not well defined or designed by theirstudy.

Regardless of the merits of the study by (Everett & Spencer 1983), itappears from the literature that the danger of collisions with automobilesand other road traffic is a significant concern for many potential and current

21

cyclists.

3.3.4 Distance

One of the major limitations of a bicycle is that of distance. While cycling iscompetitive with car travel over short distances, the slower speed of a bicyclelimits its attractivness for longer journeys, particularly in areas where trafficspeeds are not limited by congesion. The physical effort required by cyclingalso limits the range of bicycle travel. While a trip of less than 5kms is notparticularly tiring for most people, a longer trip is likely to leave a persontired and sweaty. (Robinson, Edwards & Ohrn 1980) report that “... morethan 90 percent of non-automobile trips were 3.2km or less in length”. Asimilar situation is apparent in Melbourne, with 72 percent of all bicycletrips being less than 3km (VicRoads 1999, page 4)

Combining the bicycle with public transport can distance limitation ofbicycle travel. By using a bicycle to travel a short distance to a transit stop,and then boarding an express passenger system, travellers can cover muchgreater distances than by bicycle alone (Forester 1994, page 283).

3.3.5 Significance of Other Factors

Three other factors seem particularly relevant to the choice to cycle: cargo,access to a suitable bicycle and the weather.

(Taylor & Mahmasasani 1996) identify that only 44 percent of peoplewould be easily able to carry the equipment needed for work if they com-muted by bicycle. Likewise, (Lawson 1998) cites the British Automobile As-sociation’s cycling motorists research, (as examined in (Lawson et al. 1993)),that found the inability to carry anything substantial as one of the threemain reasons that motorists will not consider using a bicycle.

This lack of cargo capacity is an impediment to increased utilisation ofbicycles. However, the availability of affordable panniers and bicycle trail-ers, and provision for users with such equipment at public transport facili-ties, could go a long way to reducing this impediment to cycling use. Thewidespread use of bicycles and tricycles specifically designed for carryingcargo in some Asian countries suggests that problems of cargo capacity arerelatively easy to solve (Bank 1995). The continued improvement of smallfreight delivery services for items that are large enough to require vehicu-lar transport (eg grocery shopping, furniture etc) would help to make living

22

without a private car more of a realistic possibility.(Lawson 1998) also identifies the current market trend of predominatly

mountain and sports bikes sales as having a detrimental effect on non-leisurebicycle travel. “Traditional town bikes sold with accessories such as mud-guards, carrying racks and lights have several advantages over other designs....they offer most protection for clothing against wheel-spray, they can beused for shopping journeys and at night”. A British Automobile Associationstudy of bicycle sales in shops found that two in three bicycles on sale in theUK are mountain bikes. This compares to only about one in three bikes inDenmark and the Netherlands. The strong culture of using bicycles for util-ity journeys in Denmark and the Netherlands could be related to the greaternumber of utility bicycles in use and on sale in these countries (Lawson &Morris 1999). From observation, a lack of utility bikes similar to the UKseems to be prevalent in Melbourne.

Both (The US Department of Transportation 1993) and(Taylor & Mahmasasani 1996) mention the effects that inclement weatherhave on people’s willingness to use a bicycle. A survey in MontgomeryCounty, Maryland, found that winter months reduce the use of bicycles toreach the station by half (The US Department of Transportation 1993, page40). This would seem particularly relevant to many northern hemispherecities, where temperatures in winter can be very low. The comparativelytemperate climate of Melbourne and other Australian cities would seem tolessen the effect of weather. However, the fear of inclement weather, in par-ticularly the sudden arrival of a cold front and associated rain, may still provea significant disincentive to cycle use.

3.3.6 Conclusions on Factors Affecting Bicycle Usage

It appears from most of the literature that bicycle theft is one of the ma-jor hurdles to widespread bike-and-ride trips in a transportation network.Encouraging daily computers to bike-and-ride would require particular at-tention to theft prevention, as commuters are likely to leave bicycles for longperiods on a regular basis.

The literature also indicates that interaction with , and dangers of, roadtraffic are significant disincentives to cycling, and by extension to bike-and-ride trips.

It is difficult to identify from the literature which of the other identifiedfactors are particularly important for bike-and-ride trips. (The US Depart-

23

ment of Transportation 1992) suggests “no single improvement will be suffi-cient to attract all potential bicycle commuters to cycle, and that some sortof integrated approach is the best bet for stimulating mode shifts. Moreover,the relative importance of various improvements will depend heavily on localconditions and variables.” The neccessity of taking a whole system approachand examining relevant factors in consultation with the local community,cyclists and transit operators is apparent.

24

3.4 Catchment Area of Public Transport Stops

Various modes are used by people to access public transport. Passengersgenerally arrive by a different public transport mode, private car (as eitherdriver or passenger), taxi, bicycle or foot.

Each mode of transit access has different characteristics. The distancethat a passenger is willing to travel to access public transport is related tothe type of access mode used. A public transport stop’s catchment area is ameasure of this access distance. It describes the area that is served by thestop, and hence the region from which passengers are drawn to the station.A larger catchment area will increase the number of potential passengers.

A station will usually have a relatively small catchment area for walkingaccess trips, and a larger area from which passengers arrive by car or otherfaster moving modes.

The total catchment area is determined by the make up of the surround-ing area, and its propensity to use by different access modes. A countryrailway station will have a large catchment area, as people are willing andable to drive long distances to reach the station. In higher density areas,walking will be the predominate mode of access, resulting in a much smallercatchment area. Obviously, a larger catchment area is better, as it attractsmore passengers. However, in high density areas the catchment area forautomobile trips is constrained by traffic congestion.

3.4.1 Walking Access

Walking is a typical way for passengers to access public transport. It isan extremely flexible mode of transport and does not require much otherthan safe sidewalks and adequate lighting. From figure 4 it can be seen thatwalking accounts for a significant proportion of the access trips across manypublic transport services.

“Walking tends to be the predominant means of access to bus stops and,where residential neighbourhoods are located in close proximity to downtownor suburban rail stations (i.e.,within easy walking distance), walking is animportant or dominant means of access to rail transit as well.” (The USDepartment of Transportation 1993, page 38)

However, the literature suggests that this “easy walking distance”, andby extension the walking catchment area, is quite small.

Drawing on work done by (Lutin, Liotine & Ash 1981), (The US Depart-

25

Figure 4: Access mode share figures (The US Department of Transportation1993, page37)

ment of Transportation 1993, page 116) identifies that “...typically half of allpedestrian access trips to urban and suburban local bus services are less than0.09-0.12 miles (150-200 meters) in length.” Rail station walking distances“are significantly greater, but rarely exceed 0.3 of a mile (480 meters).”

(Parker 1979a) suggests that, with a walking speed of 6.12km/hr and atime of 7.6mins, passengers will walk up to 810m to reach a public transportstop.

To make public transport convenient for passengers, the stops need tobe within easy access distance. With walking as the predominant accessthis means that stops need to be frequent and transport routes need to bequite close together. This is difficult to achieve within limited public trans-port budgets, particularly in low density areas. The requirement that publictransport be close to the origin and destination of travellers makes it verydifficult for a spread-out population to be adequately served. “Irrespective of(infrastructure and service) improvements to the rail system...the major im-pediment is that the rail services do not go where people want to go. In a lowdensity area such as Melbourne only 15 percent of Melbourne’s populationis within convenient walking distance of a station...” (Parker 1979a).

Similarly, (Replogle 1984) states that “If public transportation is to servea larger market in suburban areas without a prohibitively expensive expan-sion of collection and distribution routes, opportunities for transit access andegress by private modes of transportation must be expanded” (p60).

While walking is an effective mode of access for passengers living close tostations, a quicker access alternative needs to be available for public transport

26

to serve larger areas and more people.

3.4.2 Automobile Access

Many transit operators encourage the use of cars for access to transit ser-vices. This increases the catchment area well beyond that available with onlywalking access. These trips are usually divided into two types:

1. Park-and-Ride: The passenger parks their car at or near the station.

2. Kiss-and-Ride: The passenger is dropped off at the station by car.

It is clear that park-and-ride systems allow passengers to access publictransport from large distances. However, the literature suggests that mostautomobile access trips are from comparatively close to the station.

(The US Department of Transportation 1993, page 116), again drawing onmodels from (Lutin et al. 1981), identifies that “typical median automobiledriver trip lengths for public transit access range from 2.3-2.5 miles (3,750-4,100 meters). Auto passenger access trips...(have) median lengths rangingbetween 1.3-1.6 miles (2,075-2,640 meters).”(p116)

Practical experience supports these figures. In German it was found “that60 per cent of park-and ride customers live less than 4km away..” (McClintock1992a, page 69). Similarly, the Northern Virginia Rail Transit Study by the(Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 1988) found 66 percent ofthe park-and-ride passengers live within 4.8kms of the stations. A conclusionof the study was that the parking spaces at stations could be put to better useif they were not used by nearby residents. Freeing these spaces for passengerstravelling from significant distances would be a better use of the availableresourses.

While automobile park-and-ride systems are an important part of en-abling public transport access, particularly in regional areas, the literaturesuggests that it is often used for relatively short trips. In section 3.2 it wasfound that pollution, congestion and inefficient energy usage are significantdownsides to widespread car usage. The automobile is a good way to accesspublic transport when coming from a significant distance, but it is inappro-priate for short trips.

27

3.4.3 Bicycle Access

With its relatively quick speed, the bicycle can substitute for many of theshort park-and-ride automobile access trips. “In many cases, 40 percent ormore of auto access trips of transit are shorter than typical median bicycleaccess distances” (The US Department of Transportation 1993, page 117).German experience suggests that 60 percent of car park-and ride customerslive within cycling range of the park-and-ride facility (McClintock 1992a,page 69).

This also seems to be the case in Melbourne. (Parker 1979a) states that“85 percent of Melbourne’s population is within convenient cycling distance(of public transit)” (p9). (Moriarity 1981) supports this view, finding that65% of trip origins and destinations are within 4km of a train station or tramstop.

A bicycle can dramatically increase travel distance compared to walking.“For the same physical effort as walking cyclists can get 3.5 times as far andcover 10 times the area. Using bicycles to feed the rail system increases thecatchment areas of railway corridors 4 to 10 times (compared to walking)”(Parker 1979a, page 9).

3.4.4 A Comparison of the Bicycle Access Distance Suggestions

in the Literature

We have seen in earlier sections that (Lutin et al. 1981) provide empiricalmodels for the catchment areas of various types of transit stations and stopsfor access by automobile and on foot. However, a model for the catchmentarea of a station or stop for access by bicycle is not developed as part of theirstudy. This is probably due to lack of data on bicycle access and “the lowpriority afforded to cycling until recent times...” (Sach 1984, p108)

Various figures for bicycle access distance to a station have been proposed.(Feldman 1981) suggests that trips by bicycle are feasible up to a range

of 4 miles (6.4km). However, “the effective upper limit of potential bicycletrip makers to rail stations would vary considerably by station and is due tofactors or conditions particular to each station.” (p64)

Using the Japan and Europe systems as a guide (The US Departmentof Transportation 1993) identifies acceptable bicycling access distances as1,700-2,200m. Likewise, (Hook 1994) identifies the the catchment areas ofbicycles as 25 square kilometres. Based on German experience, (McClintock

28

1992a) suggests, “a distance of 2km is quite acceptable for a cyclist wishingto continue by public transport.” (p68)

These suggestions by (The US Department of Transportation 1993), (Hook1994), (Feldman 1981) and (McClintock 1992a) appear to be just that: sug-gestions. It is hard to judge the accuracy of these figures as they appear tobe based on qualitative observations.

More quantitative approaches fall into three distinct categories:

1. Stated preference surveys

2. Calculations based on possible bicycle speeds

3. Surveys of operating systems

Stated Preference Surveys: (Taylor & Mahmasasani 1996) suggest abicycle access distance of only 2.4km is acceptable to transit passengers.However their study finds are that although distance is an important factor,the provision of bike lanes and secure parking are more important. It issuggested that the presence of bike lanes and parking would increase theacceptable access distance to up to 4.8km.

In a study of Tiruchirapalli, India, (Arasan, Rengaraju & Krishna Rao1994) found an acceptable distance for bicycle trips (for work and business)to be 5.2kms. However, this is probably an overestimate of station catchmentsize as this figure relates to single mode bicycle trips rather than dual modetrips. It may also be the case that people in India are willing to walk andcycle further than people in countries with higher levels of motorisation.

Calculation Approaches Basing calculations on a 7.6 minute trip time(Parker 1979a) calculates a cycling access distance of 1.55miles (2.5km).(Parker 1979a) also includes the cycling distances for a ‘racing position’ bike,being 1.91 miles (3.0km), suggesting that acceptable access distance is de-pendant on the type of bicycle used. (Hudson 1984) uses a similar approach,with a speed of 20km/hr and a trip time of 10 mins, to identify an acceptableaccess distance of 3.2km.

It is unclear as to how (Parker 1979a) and (Hudson 1984) choose accept-able trip times of 7.6 and 10 minutes respectively. Indeed, a bicycle accesssurvey of Montgomery County, Maryland, Metrorail stations found that “42percent travel 5-9 minutes by bicycle to reach the station, 33 percent travel

29

10-14 minutes, and fewer than a quarter travel more than 15 minutes” (TheUS Department of Transportation 1993, p40). This would suggest that thetimes used by (Parker 1979a) and (Hudson 1984) are an underestimate. How-ever, the survey referred to by (The US Department of Transportation 1993)was of only 73 people, so it is not clear how well the travel time findings trans-late to the wider picture. Regardless, the approach taken by (Parker 1979a)and (Hudson 1984) could readily be adapted to alternative trip times.

Surveys of operating systems A small number of surveys undertaken aspart of specific bike-on-bus projects. give some idea of catchment size. (TheUS Department of Transportation 1993) makes note of a Phoenix survey thatfound the average distance to access the bus was 6.97 miles (11.2km). Thisis similar to the findings of survey of the San Diego-Coronado Bay BridgeBicycle Shuttle Service, which noted an average trip of 5.8 miles (9.3km) toaccess the service (Pound & McCuen 1975, page 362).

(The US Department of Transportation 1993, page 40) cites a Mont-gomery County, Maryland, Metrorail survey of dual mode bike patrons whichfound “four out of ten travel 1/2 to 1 mile to reach the station, one-fourthtravel 1-1.5 miles, and one out of 10 travel farther than 2.5 miles.”

Using a method similar to (Seneviratne 1985), (Rastogi & Rao 2003)calculated the acceptable trip length for commuters to access transit stationsin Mumbai, India. It was found that acceptable bicycling distances for transitaccess range between 1.8 and 4.05 kilometres, dependant on housing, socialand economic factors. The average access distance found was just under 3.5kilometres.

Conclusions on Acceptable Bicycle Access Distances Taken as awhole, the literature seems rather confused as to an actual acceptable bicycleaccess distance. Figures for average or acceptable access distances range froma low of 1.8km all the way up to 11.2 kilometres. While much of the literaturesuggests a figure in the range of 5km, there is significant variance in the valuesput forward by various researchers and surveys.

The Montgomery County, Maryland, Metrorail survey, cited by (The USDepartment of Transportation 1993, p40), suggests that access trip lengthswill vary considerably between stations. Differences in land use, the friend-liness of the bicycling environment, and topography were suggested as thechief reasons for the variance in median access distances found in that survey.

30

Similarly, (Holladay 2002, p112) identifies that “Topography, direct ac-cess, and barriers like major road crossings can make the prediction of thecatchment range for a rail, tram or bus stop vary from 5 to 10 kilometres”.

It appears clear from the literature that supplying an accurate singlefigure for a bicycle access to transit across even a single transit system isquite difficult. Local factors, in particular topography, will have a largeeffect on the area that each individual station serves for bicycle access.

3.4.5 Advantages to Public Transport Operators

The advantages of bicycle access to public transport operators appears quiteclear from the literature. “Bicycle and pedestrian linkages to transit have animportant role to play... by helping to adapt transit to its modern nemesis,the suburb.”(The US Department of Transportation 1993, p141). Publictransport is less effective in low density areas, as fewer people live withinwalking distance of the transit stops. Increasing the catchment area of astation, through facilitation of bicycle access, can be of direct benefit totransit operators, as more people are able to access their service.(The USDepartment of Transportation 1993, page 11) states that “With the bicycle’shigher speed and private transportation convenience, it has the potential todramatically increase the market area served by transit stops”.

(Parker 1979a) shows the dramatic effect that bicycle access can have onthe area of a city served by public transit. Maps of various Australian cities’rail networks have been prepared comparing walking and bicycle catchmentareas across the rail systems of each city. The map for Melbourne is shownas figure 5

A high degree of bicycle access could also lead to transit operators beingable to reduce the number of stops necessary to serve a population. “Byserving a population that has fast and flexible transportation at both endsof its trips, a rapid transit system can keep the number of stations small andthe distance between them greater...Stations might well be three miles apartand the lines 5 miles apart, so that the maximum bicycle ride that customerswould have to make would be 2 to 3 miles at each end.” (Forester 1994). Thiswould naturally lead to reduced construction costs for operators, with thefewer stations and stops required. Faster transit times for transport vehicles,due to the reduced number of stops would also reduce operating costs oftransit networks and decrease trip times for passengers

(Hook 1994) and (Replogle 1993) both suggest that bicycle access is

31

Figure 5: Catchment areas for cycling and walking for Melbourne train sta-tions (Parker 1979a)

32

cheaper for public transit operators than automobile access, in terms of thecapital costs of parking facilities. Car parking costs between $US3,500 and$US20,000 per parking space to construct (Hook 1994). This compares to$US100 per bicycle for bicycle rack parking, or less than $US2,000 per bikespace in a fully automated and secure bicycle storage facility such as thatwidely used in Japan (Replogle 1993). (Parker 2002, p10) suggests a simi-lar cost saving for bicycle parking, stating that car parking can cost up to$AU8,000 when the opportunity cost of the land is taken into account.

It appears from the literature that catering for bicycle access can havea dramatic effect on the efficiency of a public transport system. “Strongmeasures to facilitate and encourage bicycle use for getting to and fromexpress transit in Europe and Japan help to explain why those countries havebetter and less costly public transportation than that found in the UnitedStates” (Replogle 1985)

3.4.6 Conclusions on Station Access Modes

The literature suggests that walking, cycling and automobile access to publictransport are each suited to different functions. Walking is flexible, conve-nient and does not require very much infrastructure. However, walking isonly suitable for short distances, up to about a kilometre. For public trans-port to be effective, other than in high density regions, the catchment area ofpublic transport stops need to greater than that available by walking alone.

(Replogle 1984, page 61) suggests that while both bicycles and automo-biles have “a role in expanding the service areas of transit in low-densityareas, each provides complementary functions”. Bicycles are suited for rel-atively short trips (up to 3-4km). Automobiles are not suitable for trips ofthis length due to excessive costs of providing parking facilities, congestionaround stations and pollution problems from cold start engine use. However,for longer transit access trips, those beyond easy cycling distance, the au-tomobile is the best solution. “The bicycle is the in-between machine, thatprovides an alternative to pedestrian isolation on the one hand and motorisedanonymity on the other.” (Parker 1979a)

Unfortunately, bicycle and pedestrian access systems are rarely imple-mented in many transport systems. (The US Department of Transportation1993) suggests that they have not “been on the minds of American trans-portation planners and transit system operators, in clear contrast to theirWestern European and Japanese counterparts.”(p27). We currently have

33

transit systems that are geared towards access by car, even for relativelyshort trips.

34

3.5 Accessing the Station or Stop

Much of the literature on dual-mode transport emphasises the importance ofthe interchange between the bicycle and the public transport mode. “Onlywhen cycling and walking work almost seamlessly with public transport canthe journeys be achieved in competitive times.” (Holladay 2002, p111). Sim-ilarly, (The US Department of Transportation 1992, p56) suggests that re-gardless of the quality of bicycle facilities at a station or stop usage will below if the transit stop is not easily reached by bicycle.

The link between the bicycle and the public transport legs can be dividedinto two sections:

1. Bicycle paths and routes near the station or stop

2. The routes and facilities inside the station or very close to the stop.

Both (Holladay 2002) and (McClintock 1992a) emphasise that there shouldbe safe, direct, convenient and comfortable cycle access right up to the nextlink in the multimodal trip. Similarly (The US Department of Transportation1993, p14) states that “Effective bicycle and pedestrian access to public trans-portation requires attention to the passenger’s entire journey, from home-to-station and station-to-final destination”.3.11

(The US Department of Transportation 1993, page 52) also mentions theimportance of connecting facilities across management boundaries. “Poorlydeveloped inter-jurisdictional and inter-agency cooperation often impedesconsideration of the door-to-door experience of using public transportation”.A number of different agencies will operate and maintain the facilities thata cyclist will use on a trip to a station. Bicycle paths are usually main-tained by local councils, on-road bicycle routes are by the road authority,whereas the station bicycle facilities will likely be managed by the transitoperator. The change of mode from bicycle to transit will likely include achange across management jurisdictions. Ensuring that facilities are wellplanned and run across management boundaries is particularly importantfor encouraging dual-mode trips

3.5.1 Linking Bicycle Routes and Paths to the Station

The literature surveyed agrees that linking bicycle route and paths directlyto the station is an important part of making bike and ride systems work.

35

“Without penetrator bicycle paths to connect them to major transit stops,employment, and shopping centers, only a minority of cyclists will considerit attractive to bicycle to transit” (Replogle 1993, page 70). This linkage ofbicycle routes ties in with the ‘danger from traffic’ factor that affects cycleuse as discussed in section 3.3.3. People will find bicycling to transit a muchless attractive option if they have to contend with difficult road conditions ontheir journey. Where bicycle paths and bicycle lanes are provided they shouldbe linked directly to transit services. Many stations are on streets where littleor no thought has been given to bicycle safety, which reduces the ease andattractiveness of bicycle access (The US Department of Transportation 1993,page 44).

Improvements to access routes and linkages should be concentrated withina mile or less of transit stops. Such improvements would include the removalof “missing links” in bike paths and between paths and the station, andalteration of locations where it is hard to cross major streets or other suchbarriers. The separation of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles on busyroads leading to stations can be a very effective way of encouraging cycleaccess, and can be achieved at relatively low cost. (The US Department ofTransportation 1993, p42) suggests that “traffic calming should be considerednot only for residential streets” but also in “streets adjacent to transit stationsand major retail and commercial centers”. An approach similar to that usedin the Netherlands is suggested. Dutch “woonerf” (or home zone) streetsare considered as a “social space”, rather than a space for the passage ofmotor vehicles. Provision of such spaces greatly increases the attractivenessof walking and cycling. (Smith 2002, p72).

This is backed up by practical experience. (Pound & McCuen 1975, p338)note that one of the definite advantages of a change in loading location forthe Coronado Bay Bridge Bicycle Shuttle Service was that the new location“was also closer to both adopted and existing San Diego bicycle routes.”

Cyclists are unlikely to be carrying a large street directory with them, soadequate signage is vital. “The provision of signs along the bicycle path thatdirect cyclists to proximate transit stations ......serves to enhance the bicycletransit linkage” (The US Department of Transportation 1993, p137). Makingthe passenger pickup locations more readily found was also suggested as away that demand could have been increased for the Coronado Bay BridgeBicycle Shuttle (Pound & McCuen 1975, p347). This seems a relativelysimple matter, but is obviously a part of linking bicycle facilities that iseasily overlooked.

36

The Victorian situation: In Victoria, Australia, there appears to havebeen little consideration of linking bicycle paths to stations and other publictransport stops. A map of the Geelong bike plan projects, (Geelong BikePlan 1979), shows that none of the on or off road facilities constructed aspart of the project are linked to rail sations in Geelong.

This situation seems to be slowly changing. Maps of Geelong showingcurrent and proposed bicycle facilities (see (Vicroads 2003)), show an increasein cycle routes close to the railway stations. However, the cycle routes donot connect directly to the railway stations nor are railway stations actuallyshown on the maps. This absence suggests that connecting the cycle routesdirectly to the stations is not considered particularly important by Vicroads.This may well be a case of jurisdictional break down between the bicycleroute provider and the public transit operator, as mentioned in section 3.11.

A second example of poor route connection in Victoria is the link be-tween the Lilydale-Warburton trail and Lilydale station. The “developmentof the last kilometer of the trail from the highway to the station has beenstalled because the Mount Lilydale College occupies a short section of thealignment.” (Railtrails Australia 2000). The majority of the rest of the trailwas opened in 1999, but the connection to the major form of public trans-port near the trail is still incomplete. Cyclists arriving at the station needto travel a significant distance on a major road to reach the start of the offroad trail.

An exception to this lack of consideration in Victoria is the Box HillTransport Center redevelopment. The report by (Perrott, Lyon, Timlock andKesa, John Connell Consulting Engineers & Ministry of Transport, Victoria1975, p21) notes that “bicycle storage areas are...linked with the peripheralstreet network by means of cycle-ways”. While this is a step in the rightdirection, the lack of linkage with an overall bicycle network in the region isa weakness in the station redevelopment planning.

3.5.2 Getting Into and Around the Station

Once a cyclist has arrived at the entrance to a station a significant part ofthe journey has been completed.However, the next challenge is to get intothe station, off the bike and onto a transit service. Whilst this seems to beminor part of the overall journey, the literature suggests that it is importantto consider this step in any planning.

Figure 6 shows the addition of a wheeling ramp to allow cyclists to negoti-

37

Figure 6: A wheeling ramp added to a stairway to facilitate cycle access ata station at Winterthur, England (Holladay 2002)

38

Figure 7: A cycle access ramp direct to bicycle parking above a station atWinterthur (Holladay 2002)

ate stairs. Sharing ramps with pedestrians will generally cause few problems(as long as the cyclists are not mounted), although peak periods may be an is-sue. Stairs and escalators can be major obstacles for cyclists (Holladay 2002).

(Bracher 1992, page 184) makes note of a programme to install lifts atall stations in a German transit network. “This programme had originallybeen set up for the handicapped, but it will now be adapted for the carriageof bicycles on lifts.”

Figure 7 shows ride in direct access to bicycle parking at a station inWinterthur, England. By enabling cyclists to enter through a dedicatedroute, they can park their bicycles without conflicting with pedestrians.(Holladay 2002, p113-115).

(McClintock 1992a, page 64) suggests that “facilities provided need to beclearly signed and well publicised”. (Holladay 2002, page 113) agrees thatsign posting and publicity are important factors but suggests that the layoutof the station should be such that the direction to cycle parking, ticketingand platforms is obvious to cyclists as well as other travellers.

(Doolittle & Porter 1994, page 24) agree with the other literature that“gaining physical access to platforms, ... stairs and elevators”, access andegress turnstiles and other fare barriers, and maneuvering amongst large

39

numbers of other passengers are significant impediments to negotiating astation with a bicycle.

From the literature it appears that access into and within railway stationsis another item that requires attention when designing for dual mode bikeusers. Many of the provisions required are similar to those necessary forwheelchair access. However, care should be taken in considering the siting ofbicycle facilities and cycle access routes as part of the overall station accessand pedestrian circulation plans.

40

3.6 Bicycle Parking for Dual-Mode Trips

Section 5.2.1 of this literature survey found that fear of theft is a significantimpediment to dual-mode bicycle use, particularly in locations with highbicycle theft rates. Many bicycles parked at a railway stations or transitstops are left on a regular basis for extended periods of time. Unless suitablefacilities exist to secure these bicycles they are quite easily vandalised orstolen. To encourage bicycle use for dual-mode trips, reducing the likelihoodof bicycle theft at railway stations and transit stops is necessary.

Theft and vandalism do not play such a large role in automobile park-and-ride systems. Modern cars have a large number of built-in security featuresthat make theft a less likely occurrence for motorists (Parker 1979a). Cars arealso more expensive, so the level of theft reporting and subsequent recovery ishigher than for bicycles. (Gardiner 1993) notes that the level of notificationof bicycle theft or vandalism is low, “with many people only bothering toregister a complaint on the theft of their third or fourth bicycle.” Based onAustralian Institute of Criminology figures, (Parker 1994) suggests that only65% of bicycle thefts are reported in large cities.

Policing of public transport can do a lot to curb the theft rates of bicycles,but the police can not be everywhere at once. (Parker 1994) quotes a letterfrom the Chief Superintendent of the Transit Police District which states“...the answer to bicycle theft lies in the method of storage of the bicycle,and not in policing. Secure storage facilities within the vicinity of stations,would seem to be the best answer to the problem”.

(Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants)1981, p28) note that the provision of secure parking is an important part ofreducing bicycle theft. Situations where secure parking is necessary are:

• Locations with a high incidence of theft and vandalism

• A station layout where bikes cannot be stored in a public location

• A station unmanned in the evening and/or patronised by passengerswho return after dark

• Special situations where a demand may exist for overnight storage

(Forester 1994, p285) suggests that bicycle parking is not worthwhile forsome public transport routes. Secure parking facilities are not needed at localbus stops “because cyclists can ride as fast as local buses move”. Much of

41

the literature takes a similar view, suggesting that the bicycle can substitutefor unpopular and slow bus feeder routes, and it is at the railway stationsand express bus stops that secure facilities are particularly important.

(Holladay 2002) states that both long term parking, for daily commuters,and short term parking, for casual users, are necessary. Likewise (Austroads1999b) identifies the need for facilities for both long (all day) and medium(a few hours) term users.

(Holladay 2002, p116) also suggests that provision needs to be made formomentary parking within a station. A rail or wheel grip to hold a bikewhile tickets are purchased “within sight of the booking counter makes theprocess fast and convenient, as the bike does not need to be locked or securedagainst unwanted attention”. Similar facilities on platforms and at stationkiosks and shops can make the trip easier for cyclists.

3.6.1 Level of Security Provision

The Australian standard on bicycle parking, (Standards Australia 1993),divides facilities into three classes. These classes are based on the level ofsecurity provided, with class one offering high security and class three offeringlow security.

The definitions are:

• Class 1: Fully enclosed individual lockers

• Class 2: Locked compounds with communal access using duplicate keys

• Class 3: Facilities to which the bicycle frame and wheels can be locked

“Unless the frame and both wheels of a bicycle can be locked to a facility,it cannot be regarded as secure” (Standards Australia 1993).

It is noted that class 3 parking is only suitable for short term parking.“If to be used as a long-term parking facility, direct surveillance will berequired” (Standards Australia 1993). Similarly, class 2 parking facilitiesmay require some surveillance where used by the general public. Class 1parking is the only class not requiring some form of surveillance for use ina dual-mode situation, but the standard states that “the lockers should belocated in a reasonably well lit public place to deter vandalism” (StandardsAustralia 1993)

(Gardiner 1993) likewise found that U racks (a class 3 facility) are onlysuitable for occasional users at staffed stations. (Loder and Bayly (Planning,

42

Engineering and Landscape Consultants) 1981, p5) comment that “Manycyclists clearly value ease of use of a stand more highly than the level ofsecurity provided”. It is likely that for casual users the effort of arranginga higher level of security (ie a locker) for a small number of uses is notworthwhile. However, where cyclists are regular users The “knowledge thatthe bike is safely stored” provides the cyclists with confidence about theirtravel arrangements. “The freedom provided by a bike locker......(enables thecyclist to) travel home later in the evening or even leave the bike at the stationovernight or over the weekend”(Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering andLandscape Consultants) 1981, p3).

(Holladay 2002) suggests that class 2 facilities, with swipe card accessmay be suitable for dual-mode parking use. Such a facility would have ahigher parking density than class 1 parking, but still have a full audit trial ofaccess. Linking such facilities to a smart card used for ticketing has potentialin Melbourne (Woodruff 2004).

(Taylor & Mahmasasani 1996) conclude that “one of the best incentives topromote bike and ride is the provision of bicycle lockers or ... guarded/coveredparking” (p94). (Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and LandscapeConsultants) 1981) suggest that lockers also provide the advantage of stor-age for other equipment such as wet weather gear, making bike and ride tripsmore convenient.

Both (Parker 2002) and (The US Department of Transportation 1993)suggest that investment in high security parking facilities, while more ex-pensive, is less costly in the long term. “Experience has shown that lowerquality facilities are more subject to vandalism and theft and can underminebicycle-transit program goals by bringing about lower levels of use than wouldbe the case with better quality parking facilities” (The US Department ofTransportation 1993, page 138).

(Holladay 2002) notes that “Lockers require a higher level of managementthan open parking stands, but where the user is committed to regular travelfrom that station the investment can be justified” (p118). (Parker 2002)suggests that the management of the locker system in Brisbane is straight-forward and problem free. Lockers are allocated on a three monthly basis,with a $50 key deposit required from users. Every three months users arerequested to confirm their continued use of the locker or return the key. Incases where there is no response to the request for confirmation the locker isassumed to be unoccupied and the $50 deposit covers the cost of replacingthe lock. Management of such a system requires little work from station

43

staff. This system could well be a model for other systems in AustraliaUnfortunately, there is only one rail system in Australia that supplies sig-

nificant amounts of secure bicycle parking. The Citytrain system in Brisbanesupplies a class one bicycle space per 22 commuters (Parker 2002). Mean-while in Melbourne there is only one class one space per 155 commuters.

In general Australia has a long way to go in providing secure parking atstations.“For every secure bicycle parking space at Australian urban stationsthere (are) 36 secure spaces in the Netherlands” (Parker 2002, page 12).

3.6.2 Automated and Guarded Facilities

Facilities to securely store large numbers of bicycles have been developed inJapan, Germany and the Netherlands in a response to “bicycle pollution”.(McClintock 1992a, page 67) notes the extreme example of Munster in Ger-many where “the proliferation of parked bikes became so great, with well over3,000 being left in and around the station area, that the City Council...builta special multi-storey cycle parking facility.”

44

Figure 8: A multi-story bicycle parking near Tokyo, Japan. The inset showsa computer controlled crane that automatically lifts bicycles into storage(Replogle 1985) 45

Multi-storey facilities are common in Japan, due to the lack of spaceand high level of bicycle use. Fully automated systems have cranes to liftbicycles into storage spaces from ground level (see figure 8). These systemsoffer commuters a very high level of security and convenience. While suchhigh-tech facilities may seem like an expensive way to park bicycles, they aresignificantly cheaper than providing automobile parking (Replogle 1993).

A more modest system is the guarded bicycle parking garage. Thesefacilities are popular in Europe and Japan, and offer a high degree of securityfor both casual and regular users. Similar to guarded car parking garages,these facilities have a staff of security guards present to protect against theft.Such dedicated facilities may seem well beyond the budgets of many bike andride programs. However, (The US Department of Transportation 1993, p99-100) suggests that they are relatively inexpensive to run. The average costof guarded bicycle parking in the Netherlands is $US63 per space per year,while a relatively small facility in Germany, where economics of scale are lessapparent, only costs a total of $US335 per space per year. Such costs can beoffset by charging users a fee to park bicycles.

For most situations in Australia it would be hard to justify this expense,given the low levels of current dual-mode bike travel. However, (The US De-partment of Transportation 1993) suggests that making bicycle parking areaspart of the areas supervised by station personnel or car parking attendantsprovides a similar type of security. Linking parking facilities with retail orkiosk services within the station may also be a possible way of improvingsecurity.

A number of papers describe the ‘Cycle Station’ concept. A cycle stationcombines a guarded cycle parking guarage with bike repair services and sales.This system could be implemented in larger stations, particularly those at-tached to retail complexes. A partnership between a private contractor andgovernment is mentioned in (The US Department of Transportation 1993,p100) with revenues from parking fees and bike sales and repairs partiallycovering the cost of providing the parking facilities.

3.6.3 Location

The literature suggests that location is an important factor in the provision ofbicycle parking. (McClintock 1992a, page 70) states that “badly sited cycleparking and indeed poorly designed cycle parking facilities in general...givea message to cyclists that their needs are not being taken seriously and that

46

they are just second-class transport users”. Placing bicycle parking closer tostation entrances than car parking is important in reinforcing the messagethat bicycle access is taken seriously by the transit operator.

Much of the literature emphasises the importance of having bicycle park-ing as close as possible to the platform. (The US Department of Transportation1993, page 107) notes that the Danish State Railway “considers the ideal dis-tance of bicycle parking from station platforms to be within 30 meters, andconsiders any parking which is more than 60 meters from the platform to becompletely undesirable”.

The majority of the literature also mentions the importance of cycle park-ing being highly visible to passing members of the public and station officials.(McClintock 1992a) suggests the use of translucent materials for bicycle cagesto enhance visibility and safety. High levels of lighting at bicycle parking fa-cilities is also suggested by much of the literature.

(Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants)1981) and (The US Department of Transportation 1993) both mention theimportance of providing facilities, where possible, on both sides of railwaylines. This reduces the need for cyclists to cross the railway. If it is onlypossible to place equipment on one side of the line (McClintock 1992a) sug-gests that it should be on the ‘up-side’, the direction of peak morning travel.Preferably the equipment should also be close to the crossing of the tracks.

Obviously, the location of bicycle parking is going to be limited by thestation design. Placing bicycle parking at existing stations will be limitedby the characteristics of the station. However, in the design of new stations,providing a suitable location for bicycle can be incorporated into the overalldesign.

3.6.4 Provision for Egress from Transit

Often overlooked are users who wish to use a bicycle for egress rather thanaccess. Secure overnight parking for the bicycle at the destination stationallows “travellers to get from transit stops to nearby workplaces and schoolsthat would otherwise be unreachable by transit”(Replogle 1993, p75).

The number of people using bikes for the egress section of their journeyrather than the access section can be quite high. (The US Department ofTransportation 1993, p126) mentions the example of Silicon Valley in Cali-fornia, where 40 percent of bicycle locker users store their bicycles overnightand use them for the trip from the station to the office. (Holladay 2002,

47

p118) gives the example of Caltrain in California that has offered users twolockers for the price of one to reduce demand for on-train bicycle spaces.

The key to providing parking for egress trips is to ensure that the parkingis highly secure.

3.6.5 The Costs of Bicycle Parking

A major impediment to the provision of secure bicycle parking is obtainingfunding to install suitable facilities. This seems quite an odd situation, whencompared to the cost of providing automobile facilities.

(Feldman 1981) suggests that the cost of bicycle lockers is in the orderof $US250 per bicycle space. Likewise (Replogle 1984) suggests that bicy-cle parking costs between $US50 and $US500 per space. Top of the lineautomatic parking lots, such as used in Japan, cost $US1,000 per space(Hook 1994). This compares to automobile parking, which ranges from$US1,200 (Feldman 1981) per space all the way up to $US20,000 for a space ina parking garage (Hook 1994).(Replogle 1984) suggests that operating andmaintenance costs for unattended automobile parking spaces are at leasttwice as expensive for fully guarded bicycle parking spaces.

While some of these figures are probably quite dated, it appears clearthat the cost of a single car parking space is much higher than that for asingle bicycle space. Given that many cars only contain one occupant, itwould seem economically sensible to be encouraging bicycle trips.

(Replogle 1985) quotes the words of Gleichman: “For many electric util-ities it is cheaper to encourage people to save energy than it is to build newpower plants. This is the same situation our transit agencies are in. We maybe better off spending our money on bicycle access promotion than on newparking structures”

It may be that transit operators simply see car parking as somethingthat a station has to have. Building a car parking lot is seen as one of thefixed costs of building a station, just like building the ticket office and thetoilets. Bicycle parking, however, may be seen as an additional expense. Asbicycle parking is not seen as something that a station has to have, it appearsexpensive when not included in a station’s overall construction budget.

48

3.6.6 Charges

The provision of bicycle parking is quite regularly subject to a user-payssystem. (Replogle 1993) finds that over one third of Japanese bike-and-ridetravellers pay some amount to park their bicycle at the station. This amountcan range up to $US32 per month, but the majority of charges are between$US8 and $US16 per month.

However, user-pays systems can have a significant effect on the demandfor bicycle parking demand, particularly in the presence of free car parking.(Farragut 1976, p447) identifies the main reasons for lockers in BaltimoreCity receiving minimal usage:

• a lack of publicity

• the availability of free auto parking

• the cost of locker rental (25 cents per day or $3.00 per month)

• and the proximity to the CBD (six miles).

The relationship between automobile and bicycle parking prices is notedby (Bullock & Fletcher 1976). They argue that bicycle parking facility usersshould not be subject to a parking charge where automobile parking is pro-vided free. Where an automobile parking charge applies, it is argued thatcyclists should be charged less, due to the comparatively high costs of pro-viding car parking.

A similar approach is taken by the Brisbane transit system: “It wasnoted that there was no charge levied for car parking spaces and the cost ofprovision of a car parking space was considerably greater than the provisionof secure bicycle facilities. After due consideration of these issues, it wasagreed that no charge would be levied for the use of secure bicycle storagefacilities” (Gardiner 1993, page 3).

From a survey of trial locker installations, (Loder and Bayly (Planning,Engineering and Landscape Consultants) 1981, page 4) found that an in-crease of $10 in the price of locker hire had a significant effect on lockerdemand. Dependant on the theft rates at the location and the characteris-tics of the existing cyclists, between 5 and 15 percent of locker users wouldno longer want a locker if the price of hire rose from $5 to $15 per quarter.

49

3.6.7 Various Parking Types in use at Australian Stations

From (Vincett 2002) it can be seen that the majority of the bicycle parkingspaces at Melbourne stations are “rabbit ear” racks. These racks, consistingof a small loop of metal embedded in the ground, do not meet the AustralianStandard, as they only allow the front wheel of the bicycle to be secured tothe stand. (Parker 2002) identifies only 630 bicycle locker currently availableat Melbourne stations.

Designs to increase the security of these “rabbit ears” have been trialled,but with little apparent success (Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering andLandscape Consultants) 1981). The increased complexity of the upgradedrabbit ears makes them difficult for cyclists to use without instruction, andhence they have done little to reduce theft.

Locker designs have been developed and published in (Loder and Bayly(Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants) 1981) and (Gardiner1993). (Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants)1981, page 50) note that “Locker manufacturers have not been willing todevelop and market bike lockers because of the unknown market”. Publictransport authorities have been hesitant to order lockers, and hence suitabledesigns for lockers are not widely developed. (Parker 1993) suggests thatbicycle lockers in the Netherlands are cheaper to build and install than inAustralia due to the economies of scale. They are produced to a modulardesign and in large quantities, reducing the cost of each locker.

(Parker 2002) reports that the lockers design developed and manufacturedin Brisbane (see (Gardiner 1993)) is relatively successful. So far there havebeen no recorded break-ins to this locker design.

3.6.8 Security of Station

Unfortunately, in the modern world, the threat of terrorism and war affectseven the humble bicycle. Transportation systems are seen as a possible targetfor bombings and other terrorist activities. John Anderson, minister fortransport in Australia, commented that bike lockers create a weakness in thesecurity of railway stations and other transport facilities (Anderson 2004).It is argued that bicycle lockers could be used to hide explosives or otherthreats to public safety within close proximity to travellers.

However, (Holladay 2002, p118-9) suggests two ways of dealing with thissecurity problem. Firstly, “every locker should be allocated to a known and

50

traceable user. The use of a locker rental agreement has enabled some loca-tions in the UK to remain operational under conditions of security alert”.

Secondly, lockers with see through doors can allow inspections from out-side, without compromising the secuirty of a bicycle parked inside. Suchdesigns are currently in use in the UK.

It appears that with appropriate facility design and management of users,the threat of terrorists using bicycle lockers for attacks can be greatly re-duced.

51

3.7 Bicycles on Board

Rather than parking their bicycles, an alternative available to many dual-mode cyclists around the world is the ‘piggy-back’ mode. In this trip type,the cyclist takes their bicycle on board the public transport vehicle withthem. This enables the bicycle to be used for both the access and egresssections of the journey.

(Replogle 1984) suggests that the ability to carry a bicycle on board publictransport makes it possible to travel almost anywhere through metropolitanand some rural areas. Such flexibility and range is usually only available toautomobile users.

Bicycle on board systems can also make hilly cities more bicycle friendly.“In Germany it is common in some very hilly places for cyclists to ridetheir bikes downhill and, when going uphill, to take their bikes by taxi!”(McClintock 1992a, page 72).

(Glasson 1984) observes that a ‘piggy-back’ trip requires either:

• a bicycle that can be folded down and readily carried on board thetransit vehicle

• a transit vehicle that, without modification, can carry bicycles

• a vehicle that is specifically equipped to carry bicycles

(Glasson 1984) suggests that the majority of piggy back travel in Australiais of the second variety, with cyclists using spare space on trains to transportbicycles. However, combining bicycles with a private car, either using aspecial bicycle carrier or putting a partially disassembled bicycle in the trunk,is becoming more widespread in Australia.

Folding bicycles are yet to make a significant impact in the Australianbike market. These bicycles are very useful for dual-mode trips. They reducethe problems of maneuvering through crowds in stations, and take up littlespace in the public transport vehicle. However, the small wheel diametertypical of a folding bike reduces the energy efficiency, and hence they are notwell suited to long cycling trips.

(McClintock 1992a) suggests that providing facilities for bicycles on boardtrains is quite difficult compared to providing cycle parking at stations. Manytrains and buses do not have space suitable for bicycles, having been designedfor passengers only (The US Department of Transportation 1993, page 75).(Holladay 2002, p125) suggests that many of the new designs for transit

52

vehicles make “the carriage of bikes impossible or extremely difficult, evenoutside peak hours”.

Many transit operators also charge high fares for bicycles to discouragepassengers from bringing them on board. Restrictions are often imposedwhich ban bicycles during peak times due to congestion and lack of space.(The US Department of Transportation 1993, p75) suggests that such restric-tions are unnecessary as “cyclists, using their own common sense, tend tonaturally avoid bringing bicycles into rail cars during crowded rush hours”.

Transit operators often fear delays caused by the loading and unloadingof bicycles. Such fears are gradually being dispelled in Europe, as the use ofbicycles on trains becomes more widespread and transport operators realisethat such fears are unfounded (Holladay 2002).

The use of flexible space within transit vehicles is a way to provide forbicycles, without reducing peak hour capacity (Holladay 2002). Bicycle ar-eas with folding seats can allow for both off-peak bicycle storage, and peaktime passenger use. Similarly, areas set aside for disabled passengers can beequipped for bicycle use when not otherwise required.

Access into the transit vehicle has a significance influence on using bicy-cle storage inside transit vehicles. Automatic-doors can cause problems forcyclists, particularly in vehicles such as trains where the passenger and driverhave little direct contact. Getting bicycles in and out of trains if the trainand platform are not at the same level can be difficult for cyclists (Doolittle& Porter 1994). (Holladay 2002) identifies small entry/exit ways in buses asthe limiting factor in allowing bicycles inside the vehicle. Where the bus hasan entry wide enough for only one person to pass at a time, it is very difficultto get a bicycle inside.

Many transit operators introduce a permit system for the carriage of bikeson board transit vehicles. Such permits, usually costing a nominal amount,allow transit operators to assess the number of dual-mode cyclists and ensurethat users are familiar with the rules and regulations for carrying bicycles onboard. However, (The US Department of Transportation 1993) suggests thatinformation posted in vehicles and at stations is enough to ensure that cyclistsare aware of how the system works, and avoids the cost of administrating apermit system. Permit requirements can also have an effect on demand, astourists and occasional users will be less likely to use the system (The USDepartment of Transportation 1993). No European system requires a permitfor having a bicycle on board, although some operators charge a fare.

However, a permit system is a useful way of contacting users to in-

53

form them about changes to the system, or to gain feedback on the service(Holladay 2002). This can be particularly useful during the trial of newsystems.

(Holladay 2002) identifies clear conditions of carriage as important in theimplementation of bicycle on board systems. “Clear and simple informationon how and when you can travel...will generate use.”

3.7.1 Bicycles on Buses

The integration of bicycles and buses is an area that has received a lot ofattention in America. With a large amount of road infrastructure alreadyavailable, the combination of bicycles and buses is an effective way to servicea spread-out population.

There are four main ways to transport bicycles as well as passengers usinga bus. The first is to place the bicycles inside the bus, either in the passengercabin or in the luggage area. (The US Department of Transportation 1993)identifies bicycle carrying racks attached to either the front or rear of thebus as two other methods. Using a specially built trailer to carry bicycles isidentified by a number of other writers. Notable amongst these is (Pound &McCuen 1975), in which the development and operation of a van and trailersystem to transport bicyclists is detailed.

The use of trailers is thought to be inappropriate for urban bus routes.They “are difficult to manage ... and take time to load. They also requireextra space and driver skills, especially when used in the restricted spaceof city streets” (Holladay 2002, page 137). The San Diego - Coronado BayBridge Shuttle Service, (Pound & McCuen 1975), while operating in an urbanenvironment, made use of two loading zones to manage and supervise theloading of the bicycle trailer. Such loading zones would probably not befeasible for a bus making frequent stops along a long route. The possibleneed for a second person to manage the trailer loading at stops would alsobe a disadvantage to such a system.

Rear mounted bicycle racks suffer from some of the same managementproblems on urban bus routes. It was found during the operation of theHumboldt County bike-on-bus system that the location of the rack at the rearof the bus caused significant management problems. The driver was unableto observe the loading and unloading process, nor able to guard againstpotential bike theft at stops. After two years, six bicycles had been reportedmissing. Interference with access to the bus engine is also mentioned as a

54

problem with rear mounted racks, particularly for emergancy maitainenceout in the field(The US Department of Transportation 1993, p86).

Front mounted racks are proving popular with many transit operators.As the racks are on the front of the bus, the driver can observe the use of therack and guard against theft at bus stops. Such racks are only able to accom-modate two bicycles at a time, which could easily lead to demand problemson popular routes. A number of different commercial racks are available onthe market. Commercial designs have now also overcome the incompatibilitywith automatic bus washers (similar to automatic car washers, only bigger)that was a drawback of earlier models (Sportsworks 2003).

The Brisbane City Council is currently running a trial of front mountedbicycle racks on 4 bus routes. So far the racks seem to be successful, withalmost 1,800 uses in the first 12 months. The racks are a commercial rackmanufactured by Sportsworks, which have been modified to meet the re-quirements of the Council and Queensland Transport. The racks cost $5000to purchase, modify and install on each bus. The buses with racks operateunder an over-length permit, due to the increase in bus length caused by theaddition of the racks (Savage 2004).

The permit requirement for the operation of the Brisbane system is anissue that will have to be looked at by any bike carrying project (other thaninternal carriage). The addition of bike carrying facilities alters the character-istics of the bus. Ensuring that the bus remains within design specificationsfor roadways and bus stop facilities is important. This may require alterationof the bicycle carriage facilities, as in Brisbane, or alteration of roads andstops on the bus routes being necessary.

3.7.2 The Express Bicycle Bus

(Eggleston 1973) describes an express bus designed specifically for bicycleuse. Unfortunately for this study, a copy of the paper has not been available,however (Parker 1979b) gives us a synopsis (see also figure 9).

The express bus would tow a bicycle trailer, and only stop every 3 miles,with commuters covering the last 2 miles or so of their journey on a bicycle.As this system is specifically designed with bicycle access and egress in mind,the bus does not have to stop as often as a regular passenger bus. Althoughtime would be taken with loading and unloading bicycles, the reduction ofthe number of stops would result in an average speed of up to two times thatof a regular bus.

55

Figure 9: Express bus designed specifically for bicycle access (Parker 1979b)and (Eggleston 1973)

56

This total system has the advantages of a local bus service, as far asgetting travellers directly to their destinations. However the use of an in-dividual bicycle to cover the ‘last mile’, rather than the entire bus, wouldsignificantly decrease total travel times for passengers. This system wouldbe most effective along a freeway, where traffic speeds are relatively high.

(Parker 1979b) also suggests some other travel systems involving bicycleson board. These systems aim to solve the problem of getting passengersdirectly to their destinations. The difficulty of covering the ‘last-mile’ signif-icantly reduce the effectiveness of shared minibus and car pooling. If passen-gers access the shared vehicle on foot they need to be picked up comparativelyclose to their homes. Using a bicycle for access expands the catchment ofthe shared vehicle ‘stop’. The shared vehicle does not need to pick passen-gers up directly from their homes. Instead, passengers who live close to eachother can all cycle to a nearby central location, and be picked up togetherin one stop. Bicycle access could allow shared vehicles to collect passengersfrom across a greater land area, and more quickly than is possible with onlywalking access.

3.7.3 Bicycles on Trains and Trams

Trams and trains do not offer the same possibility of external carriage ofbicycles as buses. However, there is generally a greater amount of spaceinside these vehicles, and hence bicycle storage inside is much more practicalthan on buses. Trains also offer the possibility of bicycle carriage in luggagewagons or other such facilities.

(McClintock 1992a, page 70-1) mentions two examples of external bikesystems linked to trams. Basle, in Switzerland, has a special bicycle tramtrailer that can be rented by groups at weekends. Stuttgart in Germanylikewise has a bicycle trailer in the hilly suburb of Degerloch (see figure 10).

The exact details of how these tram systems work are not apparent fromthe description of (McClintock 1992a). However, translation of these systemsto the extensive tram system in Melbourne could be a possibility.

3.8 Bicycle Hire Systems

A bicycle hire service was introduced in the 1950s at Swiss stations, as aservice for travelling salesmen. Across many European and Japanese trans-port systems cycle hire at stations is widespread (McClintock 1992a). Such

57

Figure 10: Carriage of bikes on the rack and pinion railway serving the hillysuburb of Degerloch, Stuttgart, Germany (McClintock 1992a, page 72)

systems allow commuters, casual users and tourists to use a bicycle whenthey need one, without the hassle of bring their own bicycles with them onthe transit service.

Cycle hire facilities are often linked with guarded bicycle garages. InGermany, the fee for hiring a bicycle is the same as the fee for parking abicycle. A hired bicycle can be returned to a different station to the onefrom which it was hired (Bohle 2002). Such systems allow a great level offlexibility for travellers.

Japanese rental systems allow customers to purchase rental privileges ona monthly basis. “They are then entitled to take a bicycle from the systemwhenever they wish, although it will often be a different bicycle than theyused before” (Replogle 1993). The bicycles available are a standard type thatis easily adjusted to suit each rider. Several advantages to such a system arenoted:

• Since all the bicycles are the same, provision to access a particularbicycle is not necessary. The storage density can be greater than is

58

possible in standard bicycle parking facilities.

• Bicycles used by clients commuting in the peak direction can be rentedto clients travelling in the opposite direction throughout the day, lead-ing to a high level of vehicle utilisation.

With bicycle hire facilities using a standard, mass produced bicycle thecost of each bicycle can be quite low. “Good quality machines can be im-ported for as low as $70 each...” (Parker 1979a)

However, effective management of the system is important for success.(Holladay 2002) points to the history of failure of free bicycle systems. “Ascheme through which the bikes can be maintained and users made responsi-ble for their return” would seem the major stumbling block of a free bicyclesystem. Ensuring that such problems do not also effect bicycle hire systemswould seem an important point for success.

While widespread bicycle hire facilities are popular across transit systemsoverseas, they would appear to be difficult to implement in Australia atthis time. The large expenditure on a stock of bicycles, and the risks ofmaintenance and return systems not working properly, appear the majordisincentive. Implementing cycle hire systems in addition to guarded cycleparking would appear the most sensible course. Once a widespread secureparking system exists, and cycling to railway stations becomes part of thetransport culture, the addition of cycle hire facilities would appear relativelystraight forward.

3.9 Promotion of Facilities

The Geelong bicycle plan introduced the concept of the 4E’s to bicycle plan-ning in Australia. Engineering, Education, Encouragement and Enforcementwere seen as the four areas that required attention to increase bicycle usage(Sach 1984).

Encouragement is the process of promoting the use of bicycle facilities.A perfectly engineered bicycle facility is useless unless people are encouragedto make use of it.

This applies directly to dual-mode facilities. Combining the bicycle withpublic transport is not always an obvious way to travel, particularly in cardominated societies. “Many people are unaware of how to use a bicycle aspart of a travel itinerary other than by cycling the whole journey”(Holladay2002, p 138).

59

(Parker 2002) identifies the effect that the “bush telegraph” has on thelevel of use of bicycle facilities. “In Brisbane, cyclists using the lockers spreadthe word about how secure and convenient they are”. However, relying onpromotion by word of mouth will do little to spread the word beyond peoplewho are regular cyclists.

(Holladay 2002) and (The US Department of Transportation 1993) bothidentify that simple information and signage around transit facilities cando much to promote dual-mode transport to current transit users. However,“while this may free up capacity in overcrowded park-and-ride lots, it will notattract many new riders to transit” (The US Department of Transportation1993, p138).

Promotion through local newspapers as well as at transit facilities isidentified an important part of encouraging dual-mode travel by (Austroads1999b). (Parker 1979a) suggests that an even greater level of promotionis required to “sell the idea” to the community. (Parker 1979a) points tolarge government campaigns such as the ‘Life Be In It’ program, and pri-vate sector marketing strategies, as a model for dual-mode promotion. TheGeelong bike plan recognised that “the success of public relations and mar-keting. . . is dependent upon the enthusiasm and quality of those working onthe programs”(Sach 1984). Possibly recognising that engineers are proba-bly best left to do the engineering rather than the encouragement, a publicrelations consultant was employed by the Geelong bike plan to develop aprogram of promotion.

It appears from the literature that promotion is a key component of thesuccess of a dual-mode transport system. In places where the combinationof the bicycle and transit is not already part of the culture of transport,promoting these alternatives is a vitally important part of any program.Concentrating efforts across all of the 4 Es, rather than just the engineering,is an important part of implementating a dual-mode system. Promotionshould also encompass all members of the community, not just current publictransport users.

3.10 Management of Facilities

An appropriate method of managment is mentioned as important for the suc-cess of dual-mode transportation. The need for two levels of management isidentified by (Hemmings, Barnes, Favier & Johnston 1995). “The first is theday to day running of the lockers, mainly issuing keys, collection any monies,

60

and visually checking for signs of vandalism or disturbance. The second levelrequires strategic planning that oversees, advertises and promotes facilities,monitors demand at the various stations, provides additional facilities if nec-essary and organises and major repairs”.

The management system of the Brisbane locker program is identified asan important part of its success by (Parker 2002). Simple hire and renewalprocedures means that station staff do not need to do much work to managethe lockers.

(Parker 2001) mentions two examples of poorly managed bicycle facilitiesat Melbourne stations. At Balaclava station the key to the bicycle cage “hasto be picked up at the newsagents on Balaclava Road. The cyclist then hasto walk approximately 60-70m...to the cage...(After locking the bike in thecage) The cyclist then must return the key”. Meanwhile, at Footscray “if acyclist wants to hire a locker, staff tell them to phone the council and whenthe council is phoned the contact is some person who only works there twodays a week and is difficult to contact”(Parker 2001). It is clear that suchpoor management of facilities reduces the convenience for cyclists, and is asevere obstacle to increasing usage.

Designers of such systems need to recognise that no matter how well en-gineered the facilities are, if the management is poorly implemented they willget little use. A whole system approach needs to be taken, with attentiongiven to the entire system rather than just the engineering. It seems partic-ularly important to have locker hire services available from local staff, butusing a simple system that is consistent across the whole transit system.

3.11 Factors Affecting the Implementation of Dual-

Mode Bicycle Programs

One is left to wonder why the implementation of Bicycle and Ride facilitiesis so advanced in Japan and parts of Europe, yet still relatively unknown inAustralia and many other parts of the world.

(Parker 1979b) points us towards the words of (Eggleston 1973): “When Ibegan work on this project about four years ago, I thought that the engineer-ing and construction of the trailer would be the most difficult problems ingetting the system going. It turned out that the political and financial prob-lems were much harder and took much longer to solve”. Likewise (Doolittle& Porter 1994) suggest that complicated decision making processes and wor-

61

ries about system costs deter implementation, particularly in larger transitorganisations.

(The US Department of Transportation 1993) suggests that these deci-sion making problems are exacerbated by the fragmentation of planning forbicycles on transit across various authorities. While running a transit sys-tem is the domain of the transit operator, and managing roads the domain ofthe road authority, the management of dual-mode bicycle systems falls intothe gaps between organisations. “Poorly developed inter-jurisdictional andinter-agency cooperation often impedes consideration of the door-to-door ex-perience of using public transportation. It is not unusual for several differentagencies to maintain independent and poorly coordinated control over thevarious facilities that are used by someone walking or cycling to and from asingle transit stop.”

A view of bicycle facilities as being an add on to transit projects is also ansignificant impediment to dual-mode transport. Rather than being integralpart of the design of a facility, along with automobile parking and pedestrianaccess, bicycle parking and services are usually added on later as a specialproject. ((The US Department of Transportation 1993); (Parker 2004a)).

Modern planners also seem to see the bicycle as an antique of a lessdeveloped time. (Replogle 1991) notes the attitude of planners in Chinathat the bicycle does not have a place in modern transport:“As has beenshown in the developed countries, the traffic role of bicycles will graduallyphase out when urban transportation becomes modernised...Such examplesshould serve as our reference in the planning of our future urban development(Fengkui 1986).

Likewise (Hoda 1987) suggests that modern research is focused on hightech solutions to transport problems. “Research on Indian modes of transportlike bullock carts, horse carts, and rickshaws is considered substandard andbelow dignity”. The study of low cost solutions to transport, such as thebicycle, is ignored by researchers focusing on high tech and expensive systems.

The political and attitudinal problems affecting the implementation bicy-cle programs are not contained just within transit organisations. This maybe a reflection of a wider political view of the bicycle. Referring to the In-dian situation (Replogle 1991) says “The wholesale assault on trishaws andbicycles on safety grounds is simply an expression of the political power ofautomobile users and motorised public transport interests who resent sharingroad space with slow non-motorized modes used by the poor”

A significant number of papers mention that successful dual-mode bicy-

62

cle programs are often due to ‘insiders’ within transit organisations. Suchpeople are identified as the catalysts and supporters of dual-mode systems,and are usually keen cyclists themselves. However, upper level policy andmanagement support are important for the programs success (Doolittle &Porter 1994). A lack of interest and support from the management andoperations staff is the reason that Melbourne has few dual-mode users orfacilities (Parker 2004a).

These political problems, and the subsequent lack of financial support,appear to be the major factor impeding dual-mode travel development inmany countries, including Australia. Engineering solutions for bicycle com-binatitions transit are relatively simple and inexpensive. However, convinc-ing key policy makers that these systems are worthwhile, and then gainingmanagement support to implement them, seems to be the major obstaclesto widespread adoption.

63

4 Discussion

The importance of taking an entire system approach to implementing dual-mode facilities has been emphasised by the literature surveyed in this project.Facilities need to be connected together to form a complete network for bi-cycle users. The effectiveness of individual projects, such as secure parkingprovision, will be low unless consideration is given to the whole of the dual-mode journey. The connection of bicycle paths directly to stations and stops,the design of facilities to help cyclists get into and around and the implemen-tation of bicycle-on-board programs are all components that can encouragedual-mode bicycle travel. Just providing bicycle parking is not enough. De-signers need to consider the entire door-to-door experience of using a bicyclewith public transport.

A dual-mode bicycle trip will involve the use of facilities constructed andmanaged by a number of different groups. Local councils, road authorities,transit operators and state governments need to ensure that bicycle facilitiesdo not suffer from connection problems across management boundaries. Thedevelopment and running of facilities needs to be well integrated across juris-dictional boundaries. This is of particular importance in dual-mode planning,as the transfer from bicycle to transit will always involve a change of facilitymanagement as well.

Like any multi-modal trip, dual-mode bicycle trips are only as strongas their weakest link. A single poor bicycle path connection approachinga station can have a dramatic effect on the use of secure parking at thatstation. Even if the parking is exceptionally well designed, it will not be aseffective as it could be due to a weakness elsewhere in the multimodal chain.

Consideration of all the factors affecting dual-mode bicycle usage is im-portant for the success of dual-mode programs. Similar to the effect that asingle weak link has on an entire fual mode trip, a weakness in just one ofthe factors affecting bicycle usage can significantly reduce the attractivenessof bicycle travel. Theft rates, the dangers of automobile traffic and lack ofcargo capacity are all concerns that can be overcome with improvements tothe education, engineering, enforcement or encouragement associated withthe dual-mode system. However, even a single unaddressed weakness willhave a significant affect on a potential cyclists. It may be that a weaknessin one area is the only reason preventing a person from using a bicycle forshort trips and dual-mode transportation.

While there has been a large amount of research into the successes of

64

European and Japanese programs, there is not much research on Australianor American projects. Likewise, comparisons between the effectiveness ofdifferent types of bike and ride systems have not been greatly researched.This is mainly due to the lack of implementations of dual-mode bicycle sys-tems. Other than in parts of Europe and Japan, dual-mode systems areunder developed, or not present at all. Lack of research into this area is adirect result of the lack of transit systems around the world catering for dualmode travellers. The current gaps in knowledge - particularly about bicyclecatchment areas and the importance of factors affecting dual-mode bicycleuse - are symptomatic of the lack of data from real world systems.

As such, much of the literature reviewed in this survey takes a qualitativeapproach. Many papers describe the systems that have been developed inEurope and Japan and how these systems could possibly be implemented inAmerica or Australia. However, such papers lack the quantitative figures tosupport the suggested implementations.

Quantitative data in this area is relatively scarce. Other than in Japanand Europe, sample sizes for surveys are relatively small. For example, (TheUS Department of Transportation 1993) cites a study that surveyed only 73people. The accuracy of the results of such surveys is questionable. Someresearchers have sought to used stated-preference surveying to gain data.However, such surveys are not necessarily an accurate assessment of whatwill actually happen if dual-mode systems are put into place. For effectiveresearch to be done on dual-mode systems in Australia, implementations ofboth demonstration and full system projects are necessary to obtain quanti-tative data.

The lack of implementations of dual-mode systems, in Australia in partic-ular, also has an effect on the viewpoint of the literature. Some of the workby Parker published in Australian cycling magazines has a political commentfeel to it. Audiences for such articles come from a strong pro- or anti-bicycleviewpoint, rather than the apolitical audiences typical in scholarly work.Researchers in this area have to spend much of their time convincing theiraudiences (transport planners and politicians) that dual-mode systems areworthwhile. By the time a writer has finished convincing their audience thatdual-mode systems are possibly a good idea, there is little space left over foractual research into the different types of dual-mode systems. However, withthe current gradual change in attitude towards support bicycle programs,researchers will be better able to look into the characteristics of differentdual-mode systems, rather than having to always compare dual-mode sys-

65

tems as a whole with car travel.It is interesting to note that this literature survey has found only two

major arguments against supporting dual-mode transport. The first is theadded cost of providing bicycle facilities. While the costs of bicycle facilitieson their own can appear quite large, the hidden costs of automobile park-ing, congestion and pollution are many times as large. The lack of a systemwide view when assessing dual-mode bicycle costs appears to be the largestimpediment to further expenditure in this area. The costs of providing au-tomobile parking and new highways are seen as something we have to have,whereas smaller expenses on bicycle facilities are considered extravagant andunneccessary.

The second argument against dual-mode systems discovered in this reviewis a feeling that the bicycle is somehow not ‘modern’ enough for currenttransport systems. It is interesting to note that while a bicycle-like vehiclewas first invented in 1790 by Comte Mede de Sivrac of France it was notuntil the 1970s that the modern derailleur gear system was added. Bicyclesare a modern machine using modern technology and materials in much thesame way as an automobile. The main difference is that one runs on petrol,and the other is human powered.

We need to realise as a society that using a one ton piece of metal, rubberand plastic is not necessarily the best way to transport a single commuterwith a small amount of baggage. Automobiles most definitely will continue tohave a place in most transportation systems. However, in the face of increasedpollution and congestion the encouragement of non-motorized alternatives,particularly in conjunction with public transport, is becoming an importantalternative for transportation planners. The development of such alternativesis a crucial part of a modern transportation system.

66

5 Recommendations for Future Research

5.1 Australian Research

Australia is significantly behind much of the world in the development ofdual-mode bicycle systems. Hence, potential future research in Australiashould be aimed at evaluating the systems in use in Europe, Japan andother parts of the world, and translating aspects of them into the Australiancontext.

The distinction between pure research and design and implementationwill blur somewhat in this area. With few dual-mode systems currentlyimplemented around Australia it is not yet possible to fully investigate thefactors particular to Australian dual-mode travel.

5.1.1 Research Material Availability

Even with the high levels of development of dual-mode systems overseas,there is a surprisingly limited amount of research material available in Aus-tralian libraries on this topic. Two particular absences have been noticedduring this literature review:

1. (Replogle 1983) was the first major English language work on this topic.Based on a PhD thesis, this text was possibly the first instance ofdual-mode bicycle research being taken seriously outside of Europe andJapan. The majority of the literature reviewed in this report cites thiswork as a reference. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be availablein Australian libraries. (Parker 2004b) suggests that he has the onlycopy of this text in Australia. The lack of this text from Australianlibraries is significant impediment to local research.

2. The Velo-Mondial conference series seek to examine ways of reducingpollution and traffic congestion and increasing road safety, economicdevelopment and accessibility through the use of bicycle initiatives. Alarge number of papers presented at these conferences examine dual-mode bicycle systems within this context. Unfortunately, the proceed-ings from these conferences are not readily available in Australian li-braries. A number of Velo-Mondial papers are available from overseasvia the internet; however, this does not include the bulk of the material

67

from these conferences. This seems to be another gap in the literaturethat could hold back research in this field in Australia.

In addition to these two major absences from Australian libraries, it isexpected that there are many other dual-mode related publications availablefrom Europe and Japan that are not available here. An examination of theliterature available overseas, particularly non-English-language literature, isan avenue for future research in this area.

5.1.2 A Review of the Brisbane Bike-on-Bus Program

The Brisbane Bike-on-Bus program has been run as a trial program sinceOctober 2002 (Savage 2004). A review of the effectiveness of this project andits application to other Australian locations is an avenue for future research.Research looking into the transport and road use permits that were necessaryfor the Brisbane project, and the limitations of similar permit requirementsin other states could also be performed.

5.1.3 A Review of the Progress Made by the Australian Cycling

Strategy

As part of the Australian Cycling Strategy, (Austroads 1999a) identifies theincrease of multi-mode trips involving bicycles and public transport as one ofthe strategies to increase the level of cycling and cycling facilities, as well as“provide the community with transport choices that improve equity amongtransport users”. The Cycling Strategy was launched in 1999, and has a fiveyear period. A review of the progress made to increase dual-mode facilitiesand trips, in line with the Cycling Strategy, is an area for further research.

5.1.4 External Bicycle Carrying Facilities for Trams

The adaptation of the external bicycle carrying facilities attached to trams,discussed in section 3.7.3, to the Melbourne tram network is an area forfurther investigation. While this is possibly more of a design problem thanpure research, it is an area that does not appear to have been investigated.Bike carrying facilities attached to buses have been well researched and arecommercially available to Australian transport operators. A similar productdesigned for use with a tram does not appear to be so readily available.

68

5.1.5 Commuter Bicycle Sales in Australia

The Australian bicycle market appears to be geared mostly towards providingof sports and off-road bicycles. In comparison to many European countries,there seems to be a lack of commuter style bicycles on sale in Australia.A similar lack of folding bicycles also seems apparent in Australian bicyclestores. Research into the market forces affecting the types of bicycles thatare sold in Australia could be a valuable step towards understanding theseapparent trends.

The development of an ‘Australian’ commuter bicycle, with equipment,cargo carrying facilities, weather protection and other inclusions to make itsuitable for the Australian environment and commuter market is a possibleoutcome of such research.

5.1.6 Institutional Impediments in Australia

It was discussed in section 3.11 that interjuristictional and interagency coor-poration is neccessary for dual mode transportation systems to succeed. Adual-mode cyclist will use facilities managed by a number of different or-ganisations during a door-to-door trip. The education, encouragement andenforcement components of bicyclingm, both generally and for specific dualmode systems, will likewise be managed by further different organisations.It is not surprising that dual mode cycling can fall into the gaps betweenorganisations.

THis appears to be the case in Victoria with the following organisationsinvolved:

• Bicycle Victoria: Education and Encouragement

• Victoria Police: Enforcement

• VicRoads: Engineering

• Private Transport Operators (Tram, Bus and Train): Engineering andservice provision

• Local Governments: Engineering

• Department of Infrastructure and State Government: Engineering andTransport policy

69

• Critical Mass and similar organisations: Encouragement (political)

Further research in this area could involve a study of the relationshipsbetween these organisations and the ways in which they work together (oragainst each other) on bicycling policy and projects. Victoria has a good his-tory of inter-agency coorporation. The Geelong Bike Plan Committee drewmembers from a large number of organisations, with quite varied proffessionalbackgrounds. Wether this same coorpoation exists without the formality ofa Bike Plan committee is an area for investigation.

5.1.7 Station Security

Section 3.6.8 discussed the implications of bicycle parking, particularly lock-ers, on station security. While other countries (in particular Britain) appearto have delt with this problem, Australia is only now starting to address theissue.

The investigation of locker designs and locker management systems thatreduce or eliminate the potential of bicycle facilities to be used to hide bombsor other weapons is an avenue for futher river.

5.2 Wider Research

Outside of the implementation and research of dual-mode systems in theAustralia, a need for research in a number of areas has been identified duringthis literature survey. Such research could be of a wider use to dual modesystem managers and planners around the world.

5.2.1 Factors Affecting Cycle Use

The specific factors affecting the usage levels of bicycles for dual-mode tripsare as yet not fully understood. A very large range of factors appear to havean influence on the likelihood of people choosing to use dual-mode bicycletransport, the the relative importance of each factor is not yet clear.

Research to determine the important factors for dual-mode trips andto quantify the relative importance of each factor is a direction for futureresearch. While the governing factor will vary considerably from locationto location, it may be possible to develop a general importance ranking offactors affecting dual mode transport.

70

5.2.2 Catchment Area for Bicycle Trips

It was found in section 3.4.4 that the literature does not agree on bicycleaccess distances for a station or stop. Research to define this catchmentarea, possibly similar to that done for walking and car access by (Lutin et al.1981), could be very useful for the planning and implementation of dual-modesystems. With an accurate catchment area figure transit operators couldalso use direct marketing and promotion techniques to potential passengersaround each individual station or stop. Identification of the effects thattopography, theft rates, provision of facilities and other factors have on thebicycle catchment area could also be included in such a study.

5.2.3 Bicycle Access Transport Solutions

With new methods of transport, from demand responsive transit systemsto magnetic rail technology, currently being widely researched the bicycleseems to be getting left behind. The development of new methods of trans-port based around bicycle access and egress, such as the express bicycle busand bicycle linked car-pooling proposals put forward by (Eggleston 1973)and (Parker 1979b), could help to include the many benefits of dual-modetransport in future transport systems.

The express bike-bus proposal put forward by (Eggleston 1973) wouldseem to have potential for use in the home to school transport of schoolchildren. Time savings for bus travel to and from school could dramaticallyincrease the catchment area of schools. The implementation of such a pro-gram amongst younger passengers, who generally tend to be more likely toown bicycles and already ride for recreation, would appear to have greaterchance of suceeding than amongst the adult population. Children are alsoless likely to be effected by many of the factors that discourage cycling use,such as the physical energy required to travel by bicycle. Ensuring the safetyof school children while on the bicycle leg of a such a journey would be anarea of concern. However, a complimentary safety education program similarto the model used in the Geelong Bike Plan’s could be used to address thesafety problems. As with all bicycle programs, such a program should notbe enacted in isolation, but as part of an area-wide program of engineering,education, enforcement and encouragement.

High tech, pie in the sky, solutions to modern transport problems drawsa lot of research and development funding. Such new systems are popular

71

with the public (as lampooned to great effect in the Simpsons ”Mono-Rail”episode (O’Brien & Moore 1993)). (Hoda 1987), fittingly from the IndianAppropriate Technology Development Association, advocates a more real-istic and inexpensive approach by developing new systems around existingtechnology. The research of bicycle specific access solutions would seem to bean appropriate and economically sound approach to developing new trans-portation systems.

72

6 Acknowledgements

A number of people have contributed information, suggestions and supportduring the research and writing of this report. Space does not allow everyonewho helped to be listed here, however much of this report could not have beenwritten without the contributions of the following people:

Dr Russell Thompson was my supervisor for this literature survey. Hisinput and assistance in contacting researchers in this field was very helpful.Thanks are extended to Alice Woodward of the Victorian Department ofInfrastructure and Tom Savage of the Brisbane City Council who both pro-vided information about the current situation of dual-mode transport herein Australia. Thanks also to Oz Kayak for his efforts to provide access to aVATS survey CD for this investigation.

Allan Parker was kind enough to give me access to his quite substantiallibrary on cycling, as well as his thoughts on dual-mode transport. Allanhas done a significant amount of research into this topic, and I suggest thatanyone looking into cycling systems in Australia make contact with him.Thank you for your help Allan.

I would like to thank Fincina Hopgood and Dr Michael Reynolds for theirassistance in preparing this report. Translating the writings of a final yearengineering student into readable English is not an easy task. I thank bothof them for their proof-reading and correcting in amongst their already busyschedules.

Thanks to Rebecca Dridan for convincing me to use Latex to write thisreport, and for her assistance, debugging and teaching throughout the writingprocess. Latex is a valuable tool for writing, but having a helpful expertto turn to when you can not get it to work is very valuable for a novicelike myself. Thanks also to Allan Horsfall for his suggestions on Latex use.Similarly, on the fixing my Linux installation when everything turned intoGerman.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Engineering library at theUniversity of Melbourne for their assistance throughout the course of thisinvestigation.

73

7 References

References

Anderson, J. (2004). Interview with Laurie Oaks, The Sun-day Show, 21st March 2004, transcript available online athttp://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political transcripts/article 1509.aspAccessed May 13th 2004.

Arasan, V. T., Rengaraju, V. R. & Krishna Rao, K. V. (1994). Character-istics of Trips by Foot and Bicycle Modes in Indian City, Journal ofTransportation Engineering 120(2): 283–294.

Ashley, C. & Banister, C. (1988). Cycling to Work from Wards in aMetropolitan Area: 1. Factors Influencing Cycling to Work, Traffic En-gineering and Control 30(6): 297–302.

Austroads (1999a). Australia cycling 1999-2004 : the national strategy.

Austroads (1999b). Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14: Bicycles,National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, Sydney.

Bank, T. W. (1995). Taxonomy of nvm’s, in T. W. Bank (ed.), Non MotorizedVehicles in Ten Asian Cities.

Bohle, W. (2002). German cycling policy experience, in H. McClintock (ed.),Planning for Cycling, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, Eng-land, pp. 209–222.

Bouwman, M. (2002). An Environmental Assessment of the Bicycle and otherTransport Systems. Paper presented to the Velo-Mondial Conference,Amsterdam.

Bracher, T. (1992). Germany, in H. McClintock (ed.), The Bicycle and CityTraffic, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 175–189.

Bracher, T., Luda, H. & Thiemann, H. (1991). Zussamenfassende Auswer-tung von Forschungsergebnissen zum Radverkef in der Stadt, Technicalreport, Bundesminister fur Verkehr, Bergisch Gladbach/Berlin, Bonn.

74

Brog, W., Erl, E., Otto, K. & Sammer, G. (1984). Promotion and Planningfor Bicycle Transportation: An International Overview, TransportationResearch Record (959): 75.

Bullock, M. & Fletcher, E. (1976). Poor Parking - Detrimental to BicyclingGrowth, copy of a statement made on behalf of the Santa Clara ValleyBicycling Association, Proceedings of the fourth national Seminar onPlanning Design and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facil-ities, December 4-6, 1975 , American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork.

Carruthers, D. & Lawson, G. (1995). The contribution of transport to thequality of life, in H. Blessington (ed.), Urban Transport, Institution ofCivil Engineers, Published T Telford, London, pp. 11–20. conferenceheld in Birmingham on 9-10 March 1995.

Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government(2004). Cycle Connect Guidelines: bicycle lockers at public transportnodes, Commonwealth of Australia.

Doolittle, J. & Porter, E. K. (1994). Synthesis of Transit Practice 4: Inte-gration of Bicycles and Transit, Transit Cooperative Research Program,Transportation Research Board, Washington.

Eggleston, D. (1973). Toward a Dual-Mode Bicycle Transportation System,California State University, San Diego.

Everett, M. & Spencer, J. (1983). Empirical Evidence on Determinants ofMass Bicycle Commuting in the United States: A Cross-CommunityAnalysis, Transportation Research Record (912): 28–37.

Farragut, P. (1976). Evaluation of the Maryland Bikeway Program, Pro-ceedings of the fourth national Seminar on Planning Design and Imple-mentation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, December 4-6, 1975 ,American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.

Faust, S. (1983). Discussion on Everett M and Spencer J: Empirical Evidenceon Determinants of Mass Bicycle Commuting in the United States: ACross-Community Analysis, Transportation Research Record (912): 33–35.

75

Feldman, W. (1981). Bicycle and a Collector Mode for Commuter Rail Trips,Transportation Research Record (808): 61–67.

Fengkui, M. (1986). Bicycle Traffic in China, China City Planning Review.

Forester, J. (1994). Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Trans-portation Engineers, 2nd edn, The MIT Press, London.

Gardiner, C. (1993). Report on Bicycle Security Trial. Intermodal Facilities,Metropolitan Region, Brisbane.

Geelong Bike Plan (1979). Geelong Bike Plan Projects Map.

Glasson, D. (1984). Dual Mode Transportation, in J. Sach (ed.), BicyclePlanning In Australia, Geelong Bike Plan Committee, pp. 180–185.

Hemmings, D., Barnes, Y., Favier, D. & Johnston, C. (1995). Bicycle DualMode Transport in Adelaide, Mawson Graduate Centre for EnvironmentStudies, University of Adelaide.

Herman, M., Komanoff, C., Orcutt, J. & Perry,D. (1999). The Electronic Bicycle Blueprint.http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9b.htmlAccessed May 2004.

Hoda, M. (1987). Methods of Improving the Cycle Rickshaw, Indian Appro-priate Technology Development Association.

Holladay, D. (2002). Cycling with Public Transport: Combined in Part-nership, not Conflict, in H. McClintock (ed.), Planning for Cycling,Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England, pp. 110–140.

Hook, W. (1994). Role of Nonmotorized Transportation and Public Trans-port in Japan’s Economic Success, Transportation Research Record(1441): 108–111.

Hudson, M. (1984). What future for the bicycle?, in Y. Tsukio (ed.), NewTransportation Systems Worldwide - Part 2, Process Architecture Pub-lishing Co, Tokyo, Japan.

Lawson, S. (1998). Do style and fashion discourage non-leisure cycling?,Engineering and Control 39(2): 96–97.

76

Lawson, S. & Morris, B. (1999). Out of Cars and Onto Bikes - What Chance?,Traffic Engineering and Control 40(5): 272–6.

Lawson, S., Snelson, A. & Morris, B. (1993). Cycling motorists - how toencourage them, Traffic Engineering and Control 34(11): 555–559.

Loder and Bayly (Planning, Engineering and Landscape Consultants) (1981).Bicycle Storage at Transport Interchanges, The State Bicycle Commit-tee, Victoria. Sub-consultant: A A Parker.

Lutin, J., Liotine, M. & Ash, T. (1981). Empirical Models of Transit ServiceAreas, Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE 107(TE4): 427–444.

Mathieson, J., Groves, J. & Weatherstone, S. (1984). The Newcastle Experi-ence, in J. Sach (ed.), Bicycle Planning In Australia, Geelong Bike PlanCommittee, pp. 107–127.

McClintock, H. (1992a). Cycling and public transport, in H. McClintock(ed.), The Bicycle and City Traffic, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 62–76.

McClintock, H. (1992b). The Significance of the Bicycle in Urban Transport,in H. McClintock (ed.), The Bicycle and City Traffic, Belhaven Press,London, pp. 3–18.

McClintock, H. (2002). The mainstreaming of cycling policy, in H. Mc-Clintock (ed.), Planning for Cycling, Woodhead Publishing Limited,Cambridge, England, pp. 1–17.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (1988). Metrorail Orangeline Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Study.

Moriarity, P. (1981). Fuel Conservation and Modal Shift in Melbourne’sPassenger Transport, Australian Road Research 11(1): 44–50.

Moriarty, P. & Beed, C. (1985). Effects of Changing Land Use and ModalSplit in Melbourne, Urban Policy and Research 3(3): 2–10.

O’Brien, C. & Moore, R. (1993). The simpsons episode 71. marge vs. themonorail.

77

Parker, A. A. (1979a). Dual Mode Transportation: Making Public TransportWork, Freewheeling 1(4).

Parker, A. A. (1979b). Dual Mode Transportation: Making Public TransportWork Part 2: Bicycle/Motor transport, Freewheeling 1(5).

Parker, A. A. (1992). The Green City: How to marry bicycles and rail,Australian Cyclist 16(3).

Parker, A. A. (1993). Bicycles and a rail revival: How to put the trains backon track, Australian Cyclist 17(5): 64–66.

Parker, A. A. (1994). Locker-bike disaster, Australian Cyclist 18(3): 39–41.

Parker, A. A. (2001). Intermodality: the missing link in transit planningin Metropolitan Melbourne. A two part report prepared for Dr JohnGrant.

Parker, A. A. (2002). A case study of bicycle parking at selected Brisbanerail stations. 25th Australasian Transport Research Forum, incorporat-ing the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics’ Transport Collo-quium.

Parker, A. A. (2003). Unsustainable Transport Trends in Census Data for thejourney to work in major Australiasian cities 1976 to 2001. presentedat the 26th Australiasian Transport Research Forum, Wellington, NewZealand 1-3 October.

Parker, A. A. (2004a). Communication with J Reynolds 2004, 28 April.

Parker, A. A. (2004b). Communication with J Reynolds, 4 May 2004.

Perrott, Lyon, Timlock and Kesa, John Connell Consulting Engineers &Ministry of Transport, Victoria (1975). Box Hill Transport Centre: AMinistry of Transport Project, Perrott, Lyon, Timlock and Kesa, Mel-bourne, Australia.

Pound, G. & McCuen, A. (1975). San Diego - Coronado Bay Bridge BicycleShuttle Service, Proceedings of the Fourth National Seminar on Plan-ning Design and Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities,American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 326–366.

78

RACV (2003). Vehicle operating costs. 2003 vehicle operating costs, basedon 15,000kms per year, www.racv.com.auAccessed May 1st 2004.

Railtrails Australia (2000).http://www.railtrails.org.au/news/news.php3?warbi 112000&/searchtips.htmAccessed 12th May 2004.

Rastogi, R. & Rao, K. V. K. (2003). Travel Characteristics of CommutersAccessing Transit Case Study, Journal of Transportation Engineering129(6): 684–694.

Replogle, M. (1983). Bicycles and Public Transportation: New Links toSuburban Transit Markets, Bicycle Federation, Washington DC.

Replogle, M. (1984). Role of Bicycles in Public Transportation Access, Trans-portation Research Record (959): 55–62.

Replogle, M. (1985). Cutting Transit Costs and Problems with Bicycle Ac-cess, TR News (120): 3–7.

Replogle, M. (1991). Sustainable Transportation Stratergies for Third-WorldDevelopment, Transportation Research Record (1294): 1–8.

Replogle, M. (1993). Bicycle Access to Public Transportation: Learning fromAbroad, Transportation Research Record (1396): 75–80.

Robinson, F., Edwards, J. & Ohrn, C. (1980). Strategies for IncreasingLevels of Walking and Bicycling for Utilitarian Purposes, TransportationResearch Record (743): 38–48.

Rwebangira, T. (2001). Cycling in African Cities: Status and Prospects,World Transport Policy and Practice 7(2): 7.

Sach, J. (1984). The Geelong Bike Plan Experiment, in J. Sach (ed.), BicyclePlanning In Australia, Geelong Bike Plan Committee, pp. 78–106.

Savage, T. (2004). Communication with J Reynolds, 26 March 2004 - SeniorProgram Officer-Urban Transport, Transport & Traffic Branch, UrbanManagement Division, Brisbane City Council, Australia.

79

Seneviratne, P. (1985). Acceptable Walking Distances in Central Areas, Jour-nal of Transportation Engineering 111(4): 365–376.

Smith, G. (2002). Homezones and traffic calming: implications for cyclists,in H. McClintock (ed.), Planning for Cycling, Woodhead PublishingLimited, Cambridge, England, pp. 72–85.

Sportsworks (2003). Sportsworks Bike Racks for Buses: FAQ.http://www.bicycleracks.com/sbfaq.aspAccessed May 15th.

Standards Australia (1993). Australian Standard 2890.3: Parking FacilitiesPart 3: Bicycle Parking.

Taylor, D. & Mahmasasani, H. (1996). Analysis of Stated Preferences forIntermodal Bicycle-Transit Interfaces, Transportation Research Record1556: 86–95.

The US Department of Transportation (1992). National Bike andWalking Study Case Study no 1: Reasons Why bicycling andwalking are not being used more extensively as travel modes,Document: FHWA-PD-92-041, Federal Highway Administration,The US Department of Transportation, USA. Available atwww.bikewalk.org/technical assistance/case studies.htm.

The US Department of Transportation (1993). National Bicycling AndWalking Study Case Study No. 9 Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilitieswith Transit, Document: FHWA-PD-93-012, Federal Highway Admin-istration, The US Department of Transportation, USA. Available atwww.bikewalk.org/technical assistance/case studies.htm.

VicRoads (1999). Cycling in Melbourne: Ownership, Use and Demographics.Data source: Victorian Activity and Travel Survey conducted by theTransport Research Centre.

Vicroads (2003). Cycling Routes in Cities and Towns in Regional Victoria.http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne/vrninte.nsf/alldocs/44476C857E940624CA256DB3001C3F00?OpenDocument&Area=[Cyclists]Accessed May 12th 2004.

80

Vincett, S. (2002). http://www.bv.com.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Cycling Q and A/Rules and guidelines/train.pdfAccessed April 30th 2004.

Woodruff, A. (2004). Communication with J Reynolds, 22nd April 2004 -Senior Policy Officer-Integrated Planning, Department of Infrastructure,Victoria, Australia.

81