Assessing Options to Enhance Bicycle and Transit Integration

Kevin J. Krizek · Eric W. Stonebraker

81 citations0/0 files storedTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Transport and Accessibility Transportation Planning and Optimization Transportation and Mobility Innovations

Abstract

Cycling continues to increase in popularity and garner attention for the ability to achieve environmental, health, and congestion-mitigation benefits for communities. Although the growth in both cycling and transit may be in small part attributed to bicycle and transit integration, the growth is difficult to measure. Which of the variety of available strategies for bicycle and transit integration–such as increased bicycle parking at stops, increased bicycle capacity on transit vehicles, and shared bicycle infrastructure–is more cost-effective? Which strategies will yield the highest number of cycle transit users? To fill a void in the literature about integrating bicycling and transit, four common bicycle and transit integration strategies were described and assessed. A framework was developed for evaluating strategies, and a preliminary cost-effectiveness assessment was conducted. Cost-effectiveness comprises costs and cyclists’ preferences for each strategy. Preferences were gathered through stated-preference surveys from focus groups in five case study communities and calculated according to the analytic hierarchy process, a multi-criterion decision-making tool. Transit with a bicycle aboard was most preferred by cyclists, whereas results of the cost-effectiveness measure suggest that enhancing bicycle parking at a transit stop proved most cost-effective when compared with the most common bicycle onboard transit configuration: front-mounted bicycle racks on buses. The limited growth potential for bicycles aboard transit requires consideration of alternatives. The overall importance that cyclists assigned to security suggested considerable room for creative solutions to improve the favorability of the other strategies while addressing some inherent capacity limitations of the most popular strategy: transporting the bicycle with the rider on transit.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 81 citations exist upstream.

References

1990How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process 1986The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications 2004The bicycle as a feedering mode: experiences from three European countries 1982An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models 2006Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience 2008Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use 2000How do people get to the railway station? The dutch experience 2009Integrating Bicycling and Public Transport in North America

Cited by

2012Evaluating bicycle-transit users’ perceptions of intermodal inconvenience 2018Choosing safe and suitable bicycle routes to integrate cycling and public transport systems 2013Assessment of Bicycle Service Areas around Transit Stations 2018Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode 2015Modelling observed and unobserved factors in cycling to railway stations: application to transit-oriented-developments in the Netherlands

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.