By: Matt Pinder, Senior Designer, EIT, Alta Planning + Design
A commuter rail system is only as good as its ability to get people to and from stops and stations, known as the first- and last-mile (FMLM), yet far too often we take this critical aspect of the system for granted. Heavy reliance on car access has led to auto-oriented train station designs with massive sprawling parking lots, pushing development further away from stations and making them less walkable. Circuitous, low-density suburbs make providing a reliable feeder bus service a challenge.
But what about leveraging cycling as an access mode? The bicycle is highly efficient over short distances, and bike parking takes up significantly less space than car parking. In Japan and the Netherlands, biking is the dominant mode of train station access in the suburbs, yet in North America we’ve placed our bets on the car.
This is starting to change, though. For over 20 years, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system has been actively working to support cycling as an access mode, and as a result, the bike now makes up nearly seven percent of access trips, with no signs of slowing down. By 2022, BART expects to be accommodating 35,000 bicycling passengers each work day.
The secure bicycle parking facility at BART’s Ashby Station opened in 2011 and holds 128 bikes. Source: BART Bicycle Program Capital Plan, 2017
There is a growing desire in North America to turn this traditionally ignored access mode into one that is recognized and supported. But how do we do this? Some of the necessary tactics are more obvious: complete cycling networks around stations, and plentiful and high-quality bike parking at stations. Other tactics are not so obvious though, and often result in agencies doing the wrong thing. Here are three tactics.
Bikes on board during peak is a nonstarter
Allowing bikes on transit vehicles is often seen as a quick win for cycling advocates, since it only requires a change in operating policy. However, doing so can be detrimental to the capacity of the transit system itself. According to a report by the Transit Cooperative Research Program, a person with a bicycle takes up the same space as five to seven adult men. During peak hours, passenger capacity is a valuable commodity for transit agencies, and gaining a bicycle user at the cost of seven other passengers is unlikely to gain widespread support when trains are already crammed.
Still, there’s a reason why people want to bring bikes on-board — they often need them at the other end, for the last mile of their journey. Many transit agencies are enabling this behavior, not with bikes-on-board policies, but by implementing or supporting bike-share stations and networks in station areas, especially near major destinations. In the Netherlands, despite bicycles being prohibited on trains during peak hours, cycling accounts for one out of every eight last-mile journeys, through a combination of “second bikes” that passengers store at stations and the agency’s owned and operated OV Fiets bicycle rental system.
Cycling doesn’t compete with walking
Another common concern is that by making cycling easy, passengers who would otherwise walk would switch to cycling, taking up parking space that could be otherwise used by people cycling from farther distances. In reality though, researchers have found that even in the Netherlands, where cycling to stations is easy and highly supported, the utility of walking is higher than any other access mode for distances of up to 1.1 km (0.7 mi) from the station. Providing dense, walkable development in the area surrounding transit stations is most likely to lead to more passengers walking, not cycling.
Washington Metro’s Station Area Planning Guide calls for station plans that support walking access by placing joint development beside the station, and parking facilities further away. Source: WMATA
Plan for the right cycling catchment
People are more likely to cycle than walk for distances of roughly 1 km (0.6 mi) or more from the station — but what about the upper limit? This is an important decision for network planning; setting a limit too high risks spreading resources too thin, while too low risks limiting the potential for cycling access.
The farther the distance from the station, the more cycling competes with driving and public transit. Dutch data shows that cycling is the dominant access mode for trips between 1.2 and 3.7 km (0.7 and 2.3 mi), above which public transit and driving take over. Results from China find a lower limit of 2.5 km (1.6 mi).
This upper limit also varies by type of transit station and is generally based on the level of service provided. For an intercity train station, where trains cover long distances at high speeds, the acceptable cycling distance for passengers may be as high as 7 km (4.3 mi), while a station providing more local service may only capture cyclists from a 2 km (1.2 mi) radius. This is also due to the fact that people are more willing to cycle further to a train station with a higher level of service if it can shorten their overall transit journey, such as by avoiding a transfer.
Growing cycling as an access mode to transit is not out of reach. Take for example, GO Transit, the commuter rail service operating in the Greater Toronto Area. Half of this agency’s passengers live within a cycling catchment area of 3.5 km (2.2 mi), a 15-minute bike ride, yet today just 1 percent of trips to stations are made by bike.
Cycling as a transit access mode can be a tool to transform our communities. By replacing car trips to stations, space around stations or parking can be reallocated to mixed-use developments, allowing more people to access stations on foot, and turning train stations into desirable destinations, rather than uncomfortable transfer points.
Interested in learning more about bike-transit integration? Contact Matt Pinder, or subscribe to Alta’s quarterly Canadian newsletter.
