Information Sheets Cycles on Buses & Coaches · The simplicity of this system is elegant ......

Information SheetsCycles on Buses & Coaches

PO Box 15174 Glasgow G3 6WB . 0141 332 4733 [email protected] ..

Transportation Management Solutions

Reducing overall journey time - a general picture

Walk vs cycle(Immediate &)(On-Demand)

Queue & TicketWait at Stop

Wait for Connecting Bus

vs Immediate Walk/Cycle

In some cases barely 20% of the journeytime is spent actively making the trip

(London Travel Survey - Central Bus Trip)

Expanding catchment and timetable optionsThe Bike & Bus/Coach Choices

The facility to take a bike on bus & coach journeys has several interesting opportunities for the passenger and the operator. Not only is there a simple but dramatic impact on the structure of a typical trip, reducing the time spent getting to the boarding point, before buying tickets, and waiting, plus the onward connection, the sum of which can easily approach 50% of the overall door to door journey time but the added detail of varied permutations using different bus routes, and cycling one-way. This offers immense flexibility, especially to regular travellers on a route, and a strong incentive not to change to the private car, which is generally perceived to be the fastest way to travel door-to-door.

A journey by bike in urban conditions will comfortably manage 10mph and at this speed is faster than timetabling speeds for urban bus routes over short distances. Thus in most circumstances it is unlikely that urban bike on bus services will work, or generate business. Many US cities actually deter bike bus users from making journeys into the central districts.

Core Journey

Information Sheets - Cycles on Buses & Coaches 2

Class 158 - Cycle Stowage (Rail)The simplicity of this system is elegant - for approx £20 the ‘wheelbender’ clips are appropriate for this use (they are NOT appropriate for supporting and locking up a bike in a public open space). Note the additional grab pole set adjacent to the door control box. This has the lower section sleeved with pipe insulation, to locate and support the opposite end of the bike - up to 3 seats and standee space are available when bikes are not being carried. Detail which could improve this would be a deflection stanchion at the gangway end bulkhead to stop people entering the space and catching the handlebars, and a possible extension loop/ second grab pole to locate the outer bike. This space could equally be used for prams & wheelchairs, and is almost the same size as the DDA bus envelope for inviolate space when carrying a wheelchair

This could be used for example in the Optare Solo vehicle as a location aid on the cab bulkhead





Optare Solo - Cycle Stowage (SYPTE Rural Network/LB Waltham Forest)

As noted, the wheelchair stowage on buses & taxis is predominantly by a rearward facing arrangement which prevents the chair overturning under severe braking, and equally constrains any forward toppling under acceleration. Interestingly no such provision is made on rail vehicles, light or heavy. With this space available on the bus, many services are informally taking bikes, but the SYPTE facility, and one in Waltham Forest (Chingford-Picketts Lock) are perhaps stepping stones on a way forward in low cost ‘market testing’ with internal bike carriage.

Additionally the Optare Mk 2 design provides a useful means to provide a bike securing facility (this photo is in early experimental stages). A wheel location and retaining grip can swing out from behind the seatrest pillar and hold the bike back against the cab bulkhead. DDA regulations require the wheelchair space to be inviolate (except for the backrest and accessories noted) so that the securing system has to fold clear of the pillar, when a wheelchair is using the space. The illustration is of the DDA space picture.

Current practice is not to secure or support wheelchairs when in rail vehicles, especially when high rates of acceleration and deceleration are likely. If such systems are fitted it is likely that a pair of opposed spaces will be needed, and the forward facing place would thus be available for cycle and prams and the rear facing one for safe carriage of wheelchairs.





SWT Class 455 refurbishment (Rail)

This concept of support slots and a securing stay around the seatpost should work for many wheelchair bay arrangements without violating the wheelchair access envelope noted on previous page. This project is current and we hope to have further details in due course.

The front wheel slews over as it turns due to the steering axis angle and trail. Securing the rear wheel and frame upright, keeps the bike stable, with the centre of gravity acting in the plane of the bike frame to assist this.

Securing a front wheel will result in forces acting outside this plane to make the bike fall, and the angles will vary widely for different types of bike.



Caltrain - Cab car Racks (Rail)

The $60,000 programme - 50% funded by air quality improvement funds delivered 6 racks in every cab car for the 68 trains/day which run between San Jose and San Francisco. The trains carry 2000 bikes/day (some run with 2 cab cars), and in addition the operator offers lockers and a bike station at Palo Alto (Station for Leyland Stanford Memorial University - a US cycling equivalent of Cambridge). A good example of the simple solution that works, the bar keeps the bikes away from the car sides, an so the lie parallel, without cutting into the panelling. As such it is relevant to internal carriage on buses.





Inside the bus (2)

In the UK we had (1963-1964) Forth Bridge, with an ongoing Dartford Tunnel service and Eurotunnel Shuttle, running as MPV plus trailer. The real McCoy is the Havana Harbour Tunnel shuttle service (next page) using high floor vehicles with flat floor (no seats)and roll-on roll-off operation on a frequent service, linking the city with the bay. A considerable amount of informal carriage takes place, but Southampton (2-door SLF Darts with Caetanobodies) allow this on Unilink services run by Accord. The MPD used in London (Plaxton body would similarly accommodate bikes very easily in the lower saloon or rear section - entering through the centre doors.




Tunnel/Bridge Crossings Ro Ro Operation

As noted on the previous page the Havana Harbour Tunnel has a frequent bus shuttle using old high floor vehicles and loading ramps. Also illustrated is the Dartford Tunnel ‘special’ vehicle. Possible UK sites could be major river crossings (Humber, Severn.Thames) and city hills (Dundas Street EH, Park Street BS) where the vehicles would offer walk-on service to those daunted by the walk, or encumbered by luggage etc, as well as cyclists, all for low flat fare fee. Potential for a Cycle Initiative Funding bid.




Front Racks - US development 1978-2002

Prior to the development of the Sportworks rack in 1993, a variety of systems weer trialled but all had weaknesses, in accessibility, speed of use, and complax high maintenance parts. Domestic quality roof rack fittings (Portland) had very short working life, as welds failed and straps wore out. The Velo City Paper (2001) describes this in greater detail.




US Racks - used on rear/internally

The first UK vehicle fitted with a rack - on the rear was a Class 4 vehicle (avoiding PSV regulations and VTP5 certification). This was followed in 1997 by the Bristoil VR operating on Keswick-Seatoller service in Summer only - not a good route to develop traffic as one could cycle the 6 miles as quickly as taking the bus. The real development moved off with the Redruth-Helston service, and now over 30 vehicles have been fitted.

Loading times are some 40-60 seconds longer than for front racks, and CCTV monitoring/interlocks are needed to keep driver in control of operation. Suited to rural routes where headways are generous. Also used inside Devon Bike Buses (4 units for 8 bikes)




Trailers In the UK trailers have long been used with minibuses, often adapting roof-rack systems, but generally being of light construction - intended only for occasional use, by the regular user, who probably has paid for the unit, and takes care and time to load. The Buscycle with the Jason Engineering covered and locking trailer is running on service routes. The Cardiff Bus unit uses n open structure which requires a security tie-down, and loads only at defined points on a seasonal Sunday service (Leo Markham) .

Bolero Holidays branched out into high speed (100Kph) coach services with trailers to meet a market for cycle camping holidays based around their Mediterranean sites, and now have several units, and a wealth of experience in designing for safe and efficient operation. Their trailers carry the largest number of bikes of different types (50+) in the world (a Dutch hire bike semi-trailer unit carries more (75) but the standard bike design makes stacking easier)

Bolero, and Cardiff Bus report that initial operations had serious problems with loosening bolts and fractured welds. This is due - especially on high speed services - to the mis-match between an air suspension towing vehicle and rubber or spring suspension trailer, which has to be tuned out to minimise the damage.

Photo Jason Engineering

Photo Cardiff Bus



Duple 320 Integral - First Cymru/3.5m + CoachesThe integral coach design with a space frame chassis between the front and rear axle sub frames, offers significant potential. First SWT took a morning with cyclists to establish the optimum ways of stowing bikes. With the front wheel removed, and higher saddles lowered, bikes can be bungee strapped to the chassis frame diaphragm, which run across the bus. For small numbers the bikes are often laid in flat. A normal maximum of 8 bikes - including tandems (typical length 2.3m less 0.35m for wheel removal) is advised in timetables. For charter a maximum of 35 bikes has been achieved leaving just a light van’s worth of bikes to match the bike and passenger numbers.

Alternatively bikes can be fitted almost upright across the rear locker of the Plaxton 350 (National Express Expressliner vehicle) as illustrated by inset. The floor to soffit dimension of 0.9m means that the bikes can rolled in from the side - picture is of trials with National Express.


Photo Alan Kreppel




Underfloor - Restricted space 3.2m Interurban

The result of work on Scottish Cycle Challenge - a unit which can securely stow 2 bikes per side in rear locker.This unit can be adapted to hold bikes in any position, although hanging upside down would be of limited use and least easy to maintain. Cost is approx £2000 to fit a 2-bike unit.

Obviously the higher floor integral (monocoque) bodies provide a simpler solution Bikes here should be loadedat major stopping points.




Rear RacksThe upper illustration is an adaptation of the ski-box a detachable unit which under current UK regulations can extend up to 2.5m beyond the 12m maximum rigid vehicle length as a receptacle. Such devices can switch with luggage boxes to make vehicles highly flexible, and are use in some European countries. Typically up to 7 bikes can be carried but the unit requires bikes to be lifted and fixed - a time consuming detail unsuitable for service bus use.

The lower shows the original US Bike Racks as used in San Diego, and Santa Barbara. These have been superceded by front racks, and required 2 staff to remove the rack for engine access. Many useful lessons were learned here.




LiteratureThe National Cycling Strategy has provided some base-line information, and early work in the Peak District gave lessons on leisure focussed services. However from US operations since 1976, the reports of the Transportation Research Board, and FHwA/FTA give valuable information on service bus applications.

The website Bikemap.com is equally useful. Nota also that the nature of bike racks makes them expensive to ship especially by air.

The Cyclists Touring Club and associates in the European Cycling Federation provide a valuable service in collating the services offered.



Agency ModeReported Boardings

Monthly Factor

Monthly Boardings Period

Annual Unlinked Trips

Conversion

Monthly Trips

bike share

Vehicle Access

VTA San Jose Bus 3,384 23.00 77,832 Per Day 47,654,000 0 3,974,344 1.96% 100%KC Metro Seattle WA Bus 60000 1.00 60,000 Per Month 103,030,144 0 8,592,714 0.70% 100%SD MTD Bus 2500 30.00 75,000 Daily Avg (including wkend) 5/98* 55,653,554 0 4,641,506 1.62% 100%Denver RTD Bus and Light Rail 2,300 23.00 52,900 Per Summer Weekday 1999 76,823,292 0 6,407,063 0.83% 100%Valley Metro Phoenix Bus 608,434 0.09 51,717 Fiscal Year 1999 37,574,873 0.1 3,133,744 1.65% 100%Caltrain Commuter Rail 1961 23.00 45,103 24-Sep-97 8,735,022 0.1 728,501 6.19% 100%BART Rapid Transit 1600 23.00 36,800 Per Day 90,974,498 0.1 7,587,273 0.49% 80%CAT Bus 35000 1.00 35,000 Per Month 50,119,945 0.1 4,180,003 0.84% 100%The Bus Honolulu, HI Bus 84000 0.34 28,560 2nd Quarter 2000 67,286,923 0 5,611,729 0.51% 100%BCT Broward FL Bus 1200 23.00 27,600 Per Day9 28,469,908 0.1 2,374,390 1.16% 100%SCMTD Bus 22000 1.00 22,000 May, 2001 6,436,523 0 536,806 4.10% 100%UTA SLC UT Bus 949 23.00 21,827 Per Day 8/98 24,648,992 0 2,055,726 1.06% 90%VTA Light Rail 922 23.00 21,206 May 20011 7,913,730 0 660,005 3.21% 100%Omnitrans San Bernadino CA Bus 228,999 0.09 19,465 Per Year 1998 15,079,389 0 1,257,621 1.55% 100%Lane Transit Eugene, OR Bus 13,000 1.00 13,000 Per Month 8,094,673 0 675,096 1.93% 100%PSTA St. Petersburg Bus 10,000 1.00 10,000 Per Month 2002 9,609,588 0 801,440 1.25% 100%Tri Met Portland Bus 98,000 0.09 8,330 FY 1995-1996 86,917,412 0 7,248,912 0.11% 100%CTRAN Vancouver WA Bus 5,500 1.00 5,500 July 19982 6,793,646 0 566,590 0.97% 100%OC Transpo Ottawa Bus 228 23.00 5,244 Per Day 110,900,000 0.1 9,249,060 0.06% 25%Sun Line Palm Springs Bus 8,000 1.00 8,000 Per Month 19974 3,867,224 0 322,526 2.48% 100%Hartline Tampa Bus 5,000 5,000 Per Month 19975 9,540,883 0 795,710 0.63% 100%FAX Bus 5,000 1.00 5,000 Per Month 12,515,015 0.1 1,043,752 0.48% 100%SCAT Bus 175 23.00 4,025 Per Day 1,711,976 0.1 142,779 2.82% 100%Santa Barbara MTD CA Bus 3900 1.00 3,900 May-02 7,070,701 0 589,696 0.66% 60%Metro Rail DC Rapid Transit 1834 2.00 3,668 June 7-20 1998 218,273,257 0 18,203,990 0.02% 40%Portland MAX Light Rail 35000 0.10 3,500 FY 1994-1995 24,362,806 0 2,031,858 0.17% 100%CATS Charlotte NC Bus 3348 1.00 3,348 May '02 13,404,337 0.1 1,117,922 0.30% 100%Lancaster, CA Bus 2500 1.00 2,500 Aug-01 2,273,005 0 189,569 1.32% 100%NJ TRANSIT Bus 2300 1.00 2,300 Oct-00 149,779,685 0 12,491,626 0.02% 16%8

Athens Transit Bus 100 23.00 2,300 Per Day 1,375,316 0.1 114,701 2.01% 100%COASTER San Diego Commuter Rail 100 23.00 2,300 Per Day 1,187,751 0 99,058 2.32% 100%CCTA Burlington VT Bus 19000 0.12 2,280 FY 2000 1,541,047 0 128,523 1.77% 100%People Mover,Anchorage AK Bus 14000 0.14 1,988 from April to October '98 3,591,004 0.1 299,490 0.66% 100%RVTD Ashland, OR Bus 18,074 0.10 1,807 2001 651,924 0 54,370 3.32% 100%SEPTA Regional Rail 216 6.00 1,296 5 day total September 11-15 1999 29,774,426 0.1 2,483,187 0.05% 60%PACE Elgin IL Bus 1187 1.00 1,187 Jul-02 38,100,167 0 3,177,554 0.04% 100%MCAT Manatee FL Bus 1,166 1.00 1,166 April '98 775,934 0 64,713 1.80% 100%Dumbarton Express Bus 1157 1.00 1,157 Per Month 276000 0 23,018 5.03% 100%TCAT Ithaca NY Bus 1145 1.00 1,145 Per Month 2,621,755 0 218,654 0.52% 100%LANTA Lehigh V PA Bus 44 23.00 1,012 Per day Average Jun 02 4,096,681 0.1 341,663 0.30% 100%RTA Rochester NY Bus 1000 1.00 1,000 Aug-98 13,239,189 0.1 1,104,148 0.09% 100%Mountain Line, Missoula MT Bus 8,135 0.12 976 1997 707,726 0.1 59,024 1.65% 100%TARC Bus 900 1.00 900 Per Month - Summer '01 15,881,941 0.1 1,324,554 0.07% 80%START Stanislaus Bus 9000 0.09 765 FY 2000-2001 190,000 0 15,846 4.83% 100%DART Resort DE Bus 1,663 0.30 499 May-Sep '01 237,000 0.3 71,100 0.70% 100%Transfort Fort Colling CO Bus 283 1.00 283 Per Month 1,972,027 0.1 164,467 0.17% 100%Lacrosse Transit Bus 283 1.00 283 June '00 964,105 0.1 80,406 0.35% 100%MVRTA Dayton OH Bus 232 1.00 232 Per Month 19973 14,741,133 0 1,229,410 0.02% 50%CTA Chicago Bus 20 4.20 84 Per week 2001 302,089,554 0.1 25,194,269 0.00% 4%CTTRANSIT Stamford CT Bus 35 1.00 35 April 2002 3,915,966 0 326,592 0.01% 100%Bloomington-Normal IL Bus 64 0.17 11 April to October 2001 834,527 0.1 69,600 0.02% 10%Totals 681,031 143,856,301 0.47%

10. LANTA bike count June 10-15 2002

Monthly Factor adjustment for monthly estimate- Daily ridership numbers X23, yearly divided by 8-12 depending on climateVehicle Access is the percentage of bike accessible vehicles e.g. number of buses with bike racks or number of off-peak vehicles

6The survey conducted by RTD transit serving Denver and Boulder also showed that 50% of bike rack users were new transit riders, and that 27% of those would have been single occupant vehicle drivers without the service. 7 Portland was in the process of installing bike racks on 100% of the regular buses8 Buses with luggage bays carry bicycles totalling 50% of the fleet. Counts were only for buses with bike racks.9. APBP Newsletter May 2002.

2(Passenger Transport July 1998)3 (Passenger Transport Feb 1998)

4 (Passenger Transport Sept 1997)5 (Passenger Transport October 1997)

Bikes on Transit Ridership Statistics

1 (Spinning Crank SVBC newsletter May 2002)


US Statistics (www.bikemap.com)The Bus operations are highlighted in yellow, from a general overview compiled by John Boyle of Bikemap in the US. The most common unit is the 2-bike Sportworks rack, launched in 1993 after development with Seattle Metro to replace their 2- ‘prong’ design in use since 1978 on a limited number of routes. Current estimates are that around 30% of US bus fleet has Sportworks Racks, and approx 0.5m bike on bus journeys take place per month

Highlighting - KeyBus operations - Yellow

LRT/Rail operatons - Blue /Green% of Totals - Orange !.5%+ Red 4%




Final Page

Information Sheets Cycles on Buses & Coaches · The simplicity of this system is elegant ......

Documents

Transcript of Information Sheets Cycles on Buses & Coaches · The simplicity of this system is elegant ......