Bradley Flamm

North American transit agencies have made large investments since the late 1990s in the coordination of bicycling and public transit services. A key goal in doing so has been to increase transit ridership by extending the geographic area from which riders can easily and quickly reach transit stops and stations. While it is widely hypothesized that being able to travel on transit vehicles with bicycles allows riders to access transit stops and stations from a larger geographic area, the empirical evidence of this is scanty. Information available for Northeast Ohio, where the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) operates rail, bus and demand response transit, presents an opportunity to address an important aspect of this issue. The availability of detailed long-term bicycle-on-bus boardings (BoBBs) data and the implementation of a series of service reductions in 2008, 2009 and 2010 offer an opportunity to ask the question: Do significant changes in geographic access to transit services result in significant changes to the numbers of cycle-transit users accessing transit buses? The evidence from GCRTA’s service area provides some support for this conclusion, with the rates of utilization of bus bicycle racks increasing significantly over time and in slightly higher numbers for routes that saw the largest reductions in bus transit service.

The coordination of bicycle and transit modes has received close attention from public transit planners and researchers in recent years, as transit agencies around the world have installed bicycle racks on transit vehicles, implemented bicycles-on-trains policies, and made other efforts to facilitate bicycle-transit integration. Many planners presume that the catchment area for transit is enlarged by these efforts, but geographic changes in the size of catchment areas have not been effectively documented. This research project assessed the distances travelled on bicycle by cycle-transit users (CTUs), both those who use bicycles as a means of access to transit stops and stations and those who bicycle to and travel on transit with their bicycles. A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a literature review, a survey of CTUs in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and telephone interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Responses provided in the two cities allowed us to define CTU characteristics and behaviors in detail. What is more they highlighted two intriguing findings. First, transit catchment areas can be much larger for CTUs than for traditional transit users who access transit buses and rail on foot. Second, the very concept of a cycle-transit catchment area is complex because of the variety of travel opportunities that cycle-transit coordination policies present transit riders. CTUs take advantage of larger catchment areas to reduce their travel costs, and they use those catchment areas in curious and less predictable ways.

The coordination of bicycle and transit modes has received close attention from public transit planners and researchers in recent years, as transit agencies around the world have installed bicycle racks on transit vehicles, implemented bicycles-on-trains policies, and made other efforts to facilitate bicycle-transit integration. Many planners presume that the catchment area for transit is enlarged by these efforts, but geographic changes in the size of catchment areas have not been effectively documented. This research project was designed to assess the distances travelled on bicycle by cycle-transit users (CTUs), both those who use bicycles as a means of access to transit stops and stations and those who bicycle to and travel on transit with their bicycles. A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a literature review, a survey of cyclist-transit users in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and telephone interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Responses provided by CTUs in the two cities allow us to define their characteristics and behaviors in detail. What is more, they highlight two intriguing conclusions: that transit catchment areas can be much larger for cycle-transit users than for traditional transit users who access transit buses and rail on foot, and that the very concept of a cycle-transit catchment area is quite complex because of the variety of travel opportunities that cycle-transit coordination policies present transit riders. CTUs take advantage of larger catchment areas to reduce their travel costs, and they use those catchment areas in curious, less predictable and more varied ways.

Transit agencies around the country have made significant investments since the late 1990s to provide improved service to cycle-transit users (CTUs), that is, transit riders who bring bicycles with them by using bicycle racks installed on buses. Use of these bus bicycle racks appears to vary significantly from transit system to transit system. It is unclear, however, what specific factors contribute most to bicycles-on-bus boardings (BoBBs). Using multi-variate regression analysis and a detailed data set of 2008–2011 BoBBs for Northeast Ohio’s Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), this study compared daily BoBBs to general ridership (measured by unlinked passenger trips) in light of key weather, transit service, and travel cost variables. Rates of BoBBs rose during the study’s time period and were strongly associated with weather conditions, though even in wet and cold weather, dozens of transit users traveled with their bicycles. To a lesser extent, BoBBs are also associated with transit service levels and travel costs.

We consider constraints that prevent people with environmental concerns from buying ‘‘green’’ vehicles that are smaller, more fuel-efficient, and less polluting by using a series of focus group discussions. We find that the features of vehicles currently on the market, family and work responsibilities, residential choices, and routines and preferences all act as constraints. Serious misunderstandings about the environmental impacts of owning and using vehicles also were noted, making it difficult for many to accurately assess their alternatives. For some, environmental concerns are unlikely to influence future vehicle purchase decisions, even if constraints were removed altogether; other priorities have taken and will take precedence over the environmental impacts of their choices.

Though most Americans hold pro-environmental attitudes, an attitudes-behavior gap exists with respect to vehicle ownership. Significant constraints appear to prevent most people with environmental concerns from buying smaller, more fuel-efficient, less-polluting vehicles. But researchers have only a simplistic understanding of what those constraints are and how individuals describe and react to them. This study explored these barriers in depth through a series of focus group discussions with 36 residents of the Sacramento, California, metropolitan region who held pro-environmental attitudes.

Analysis of the focus group conversations revealed that the features of vehicles currently on the market, family and work responsibilities, residential choices, and routines and preferences all constrained participants’ vehicle purchase choices to ones which, more often than not, poorly reflect their environmental attitudes. The group conversations also revealed serious misunderstandings about the environmental impacts of owning and using vehicles that make it difficult for many to accurately assess their alternatives.

For some participants, environmental concerns are unlikely to influence future vehicle purchase decisions, even if constraints were removed altogether; other priorities have taken and will take precedence over the environmental impacts of their choices. But for many participants, strategies to remove or weaken the identified constraints to owning smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles could lead them to choose vehicles that would reduce their resource and energy consumption for personal transportation. Further research with a larger pool of subjects is needed to confirm whether the focus group findings apply to the larger population.

Using responses to a knowledge–attitudes–behavior questionnaire administered in the Sacramento, California metropolitan region, the effects of environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes on the numbers and types of vehicles owned per household, annual vehicle miles traveled, and fuel consumption are assessed. The results indicate that households with pro-environmental attitudes own fewer and more fuel-efficient vehicles, drive them less, and consequently consume less fuel than do the households of respondents without pro-environmental attitudes. The households of respondents who know more about the environmental impacts of owning and using vehicles own more fuel-efficient vehicles, but environmental knowledge is not statistically significant in relation to numbers of vehicles owned, miles driven, or fuel consumption.

The intent of this paper is to operationalize some aspects of local sustainability in a suitable development scenario and to compare its energy-use and environmental impacts to trend development. After a discussion of suburban sprawl, local sustainability, and the current state of the Pennypack Creek Watershed in the Philadelphia metro region, these residential location scenarios are presented. The latter were created using geographic information systems software and are based on projections from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. The impacts of the scenarios on energy use, air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, and biological integrity were estimated with very few data, and the effect on the value of generic ecosystem services was assessed. The suitable development scenario was 29% better in terms of energy use and air and greenhouse gas emissions, 2.4% worse on water quality, and 2.6% better with respect to biological integrity. Given its net beneficial results, recommendations for policies to engender suitable development are made, and an outline of an implementation plan is proposed. Thoughts regarding refinements of the present work and the applicability of the methods used here to other watersheds conclude the work.

In the summer of 1954 a young graduate from the University of Pennsylvania’s city planning program was asked to design a public housing complex in the heart of Cleveland, Ohio. Ambitions were high; the Garden Valley, as the project was christened, was to be a modern, clean, mixed-use, racially and economically integrated community that would be a “model neighborhood for all of Cleveland.” The ambitions belied the setting, for the project was planned for a decidedly inauspicious location: Kingsbury Run, a dangerous, disreputable, polluted gully that had been the site of the dirtiest industrial facilities, Depression-era shantytowns, and an infamous series of murders. The young planner was Allan Jacobs, now a figure of great renown in city planning for his public, academic, writing, and consulting careers. Jacobs is currently professor emeritus in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley. Based on his work developing an overall plan for the Kingsbury Run site, hundreds of new publicly and privately owned apartment units would be constructed in a garden-like setting, providing housing for thousands of low- and middle-income Clevelanders. Yet within just two years of the first units’ construction the Garden Valley was already considered rundown and undesirable, a reputation that would grow and deepen with time, a reputation the area has struggled with ever since. How is it that an auspicious combination of good intentions, significant resources, and uncommon talent was not enough to ensure the success of the project? Did the original conceptual design and the dominant values that influenced it play a role in setting the stage for the difficulties to come? This article, based largely on a series of conversations with Allan Jacobs, explores these questions by telling the story of his first summer of professional design work in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio.

The United States Office of Defense Transportation (ODT) existed a short seven and a half years during and immediately after World War II. It had a single mission to accomplish: co-ordinate all domestic transport for the successful prosecution of the war. Within three years of accomplishing its mission the ODT quietly disbanded and was forgotten by the American people. Its low profile and its quiet departure obscure the unprecedented way in which the ODT changed Americans' travel behaviour during the booming war economy years of 1942-45 and the frustration and opposition its policies provoked. This article explores the history of the agency and describes how it frustrated Americans' dreams of mobility just when they regained the means to rekindle their love of the automobile.

The coordination of bicycle and transit modes has received close attention from public transit planners and researchers in recent years, as transit agencies around the world have installed bicycle racks on transit vehicles, implemented bicycles-on-trains policies, and made other efforts to facilitate bicycle-transit integration. Many planners presume that the catchment area for transit is enlarged by these efforts, but geographic changes in the size of catchment areas have not been effectively documented. This research project was designed to assess the distances travelled on bicycle by cycle-transit users (CTUs -- both those who use bicycles as a means of getting to public transit stops and stations and those who bicycle to transit and travel on transit with their bicycles). A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a literature review, a survey of cyclist-transit users in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and telephone interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Data provided by respondents allows us to come to two important conclusions: first, that transit catchment areas can be larger for cycle-transit users than for traditional transit users who access transit buses and rail on foot; and second, that the very concept of a catchment area becomes fuzzier and less easily defined because of the variety of travel opportunities that cycle-transit coordination policies present transit riders. While we can conclude that CTUs can take advantage of larger catchment areas, they use those catchment areas in less predictable and more varied ways.

The coordination of bicycle and transit modes has received close attention from public transit planners and researchers in recent years as transit agencies around the world have installed bicycle racks on buses and other transit vehicles, implemented bicycles-on-trains policies, and made other efforts to facilitate bicycle-transit integration. Planners presume that the geographic range of access to transit stops and stations is enlarged by these efforts, but such changes have not been effectively documented. This research project is designed to assess the extent to which geographic access to public transit services increases as a result of such facilities and policies. A mixed-methods approach is employed, using interviews with planners with the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), a survey of cyclist-transit users (CTUs) in the Philadelphia metropolitan region, and telephone interviews with a subset of survey respondents.  A similar survey of CTUs in San Francisco was recently conducted. The surveys primarily addressed the motivations, practices, and challenges CTUs face in combining bicycle and transit modes. By using data obtained from a combination of surveys and interviews, this project will document current policies and implementation practices, estimate service-area changes attributable to bicycle-transit integration, and suggest changes to improve the utilization and accessibility of transit services by cyclists.

"Over the course of the past decade, bicycle-transit coordination has become a high priority for North American public transit agencies. Bike racks on buses, bicycle-on-train policies, bike parking, bicycle kiosks for rentals and repairs, and other innovations have made it easier than ever to travel by combining bicycling and public transit. Transportation planners argue there are multiple benefits from these efforts: for the environment as motorized vehicle use decreases; for motorists as some travelers switch to shared / non-motorized modes from single-occupancy vehicle trips; for public health as physically active travel grows in importance; and for bicyclists and transit users as their travel choices improve with the expansion of geographic access to public transit services.
The perceived value to cycle-transit users (CTUs) of these developments remains largely a subject of conjecture, however, as few studies have assessed their satisfaction with these relatively new bike-transit options, making the planning and coordination of cycling and public transit more difficult than it need be. To address this knowledge gap, we have initiated a survey of CTUs in the greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania region and in the San Francisco Bay Area. Key goals of the study are to evaluate CTU perceptions of: 1) the benefits of combining bicycling and transit, 2) the obstacles to taking full advantage of cycle-transit opportunities, and 3) the infrastructure and policy improvements that would make such travel safer and more convenient.
CTU hand-drawn maps and answers to survey questions are assessed using qualitative analysis and standard statistical analysis software packages. Results indicate that, although CTUs are more likely to be male, white, well-educated and holders of driver’s licenses, there is significant diversity in patterns of cycle-transit behavior, income groups, household size, and preferences for cycle-transit improvements. Contributions to knowledge and practice include a better understanding of the impacts of cycle-transit policies and amenities on users, recommendations for transit agencies concerning priority CTU programs and policies, and, for researchers, a clearer understanding of the value of qualitative data and analysis in transportation planning research projects."