Building the Cycling City

by Melissa Bruntlett

  Clotilde Imbert is a French urban planner and a partner at the Copenhagenize Design Company, who—despite the firm’s Danish roots—acted as consultants on BiTiBi. She touts the Dutch model for a number of strategic advantages. The first, which Roland Kager also identified, is how the two complementary modes feed each other in a virtuous cycle, because both are scalable—unlike systems that allow bikes directly on public transit. “It’s free of charge, and it works well in the Copenhagen area, for example, but it’s definitely not for many cities,” Imbert admits. “The new generation of urban trains are large, which makes it quite easy to fit bikes onto them. But that’s not the case in many countries.” Typically, the Copenhagen trains run under capacity, she notes, so officials are forced to find a way to fill it—in this case, an entire car dedicated to bicycles. “Most of the time, in most cities, the metropolitan trains are over capacity,” Imbert explains. “You have too many passengers and too little space, with no room for bikes. So it’s not something you can replicate in a lot of cities.”

  The second advantage offered by the Dutch approach is convenience, experienced through the comprehensive, end-of-trip amenities found at most train stations, including secure parking, retail and repair shops, and a variety of rental bikes (including a few pedelecs). “Having all of these facilities at the train station makes your trip very convenient,” says Imbert. “Each time I travel, I know that when I arrive at the station, I will have a place to safely park my bicycle.” Imbert has witnessed an evolution of the train station in recent years into a service hub that’s no longer about just the train, but mobility in general. “Even if you are not a train passenger, you know the station is a place where you can find some information about cycling, where you can go and repair your bicycle,” she points out.

  Another important aspect is the principle of predictability, particularly when it comes to the arrival station. “What you have to understand is with the OV-Fiets system, it’s a national rental service, which is an important distinction from citywide public bike-share systems, like in Paris, Vancouver, or London,” Imbert explains. “The system works differently, and the same service is offered all over the country. This means that everywhere you go, when you arrive at a station, you know you can rent the same bicycle with the same card. You know how to get a bicycle, how the system works, and how much the service costs.” This creates a significant advantage for users who don’t want to wait for a bus, tram, or metro, and are unfamiliar with the local transit system. “And with only one card, you have access to the entire mobility system, including everything related to bicycles,” she adds.

  Figure 8-3: Operated by the national rail company, and available at 310 locations, OV-Fiets serves as the countrywide “last-mile” bicycle-rental system. (Credit: NS)

  A 2011 user study found concrete evidence that these crucial elements of scalability, convenience, and predictability have directly influenced Dutch residents’ travel decisions, with 8 percent of OV-Fiets users admitting that, without its existence, they would have driven a car door to door instead of using the rental service as part of a bike–train journey. Similarly, 54 percent reveal that they now use the train more often because of its availability, while 46 percent use it as an easy and healthy alternative to the bus or tram for the “last mile” of their trip.

  Imbert also notes the increased efficiency of using bikes to feed transit, with a typical person moving five times faster on a bicycle than on foot, while expending virtually the same effort. At an average speed of 15 km/h (9.3 mph)—versus 3 km/h (under 2 mph) on foot—they can cycle 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) in the same time it would take to walk 1 kilometer (0.62 mile). By extrapolating those longer distances in every direction around a station, suddenly these efficiencies increase exponentially. This allows for larger station service areas, and fewer stops for the system. “The catchment area becomes 25 times bigger if the passengers cycle instead of walk,” she explains. “Increasing it from just 3 square kilometers [about 1 square mile] to over 79 square kilometers [31 square miles] in size.”

  Of course, it should go without saying that these considerations are pointless without high-quality bike infrastructure leading directly to the transit stop, which cannot be located on a imaginary island surrounded by busy streets and unpleasant cycling conditions. “It sounds a little bit surprising, but in some countries you see train companies implementing new bicycle-parking facilities, but they don’t talk to local stakeholders or authorities, and don’t have proper infrastructure to reach the stations,” Imbert explains. For her, it means taking the CROW design principles of cohesion, directness, safety, attractiveness, and comfort, and continuing to apply them through the door and onto the platform.

  While it is still early in the pilot project process, BiTiBi’s partners in Liverpool, Milan, Barcelona, and Ghent have seen some impressive results. For example, establishing secure bike-parking and rental schemes has resulted in fewer car trips, as 15–20 percent of bike-parking users who have stopped driving to the station, while 5 percent of rental-bike users left their cars at home. These pilot projects also managed to induce new cycling trips, with 40–50 percent of bike-parking users new to cycling, as were 70 percent of rental-bike users. This virtuous cycle also resulted in more train trips, with 20 percent of bike parking users new to train travel, as were 30–40 percent of rental bike users. Fewer cars, more cyclists, and more train passengers—an impressive return on a relatively modest investment in bicycle parking and rentals.

  Imbert insists that, despite these preliminary achievements, the four pilot cities still have a long way to go, and mastering multimodality isn’t as simple as sticking up some racks and filling them with rental bikes. “If I have one piece of advice, it’s to make sure the train companies and transport agencies team up with the local authorities to design and build a comprehensive system, because we are really talking about a door-to-door approach,” she suggests. “If there is one element missing, it means the system won’t be as efficient as it should be. It could be the bicycle infrastructure; it could be the location of the parking relative to the station; it could be the card used to access these transport systems.” Bringing teams of people together to shape a complete and inclusive system isn’t easy, but it is vital for success. “If you develop only one part, it won’t really work,” she concludes.

  While Copenhagenize Design Company’s work is focused primarily on the European context, Imbert sees the bike–transit merger as one that could be acutely applicable to sprawling North American megacities. “In the Netherlands, we’re talking about a national scale,” she concedes. “But in North America, it can be very relevant at the scale of the metropolitan area.” So relevant, in fact, that the least likely of locations are now integrating bikes and transit.

  Combining Bikes and Transit in Sprawling Atlanta

  In recent years, some North American urban planners have begun to explore ways to unlock Dutch-style multimodality, hoping to utilize the bicycle as a tool to increase public-transit ridership and decrease car dependency. In fact, the case could be made that—with the right conditions—bikes are better placed to deal with the lower population densities and longer distances traveled on their side of the Atlantic. Metropolitan Atlanta is perhaps the epitome of American auto-centric development: a vast region of 5.7 million people, where half of all trips are over 7 kilometers (4.5 miles) in length, and 95 percent of those journeys are made by private automobile. Transferring those trips to the bicycle alone is not a realistic expectation, so officials are looking at ways to combine cycling and transit in an attempt to improve access to employment, contribute to healthier lifestyles, reduce household costs, and increase the number of transportation options.

  In 2014, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)—the organization responsible for land-use planning and transportation across the sprawling region’s 20 different counties, 81 cities, and 17 towns—identified what they saw as an opportunity for tremendous growth in the cycling’s modal share. “On
e-third of the population lives within a five-minute bike ride of a transit stop, and about two-thirds work within a five-minute ride, but only 0.3 percent are biking to transit right now,” reveals Kat Maines, planner in the Atlanta office of Alta Planning + Design. “So there’s a real opportunity to capture those trips, and the ARC was interested in learning about the barriers that exist now, and how we can help get people past those barriers.”

  The resulting document, entitled Bike to Ride: An Idea Book of Regional Strategies for Improving Bicycling Access to Transit, was published by the ARC and Alta Planning in 2016. It identifies the key physical and psychological barriers that prevent more Atlantans from cycling to transit. Envisaged as a series of concepts that municipal governments can use to design, fund, implement, and evaluate their own projects, the plan outlines various ways the bike–transit relationship can be strengthened, by viewing the entire door-to-door experience through the eyes of the user. This includes providing direct, low-stress bikeways that deliver people of all ages and abilities directly to transit stops, as well as convenient, secure bicycle parking at bus stops, “park and ride” lots, and rail stations.

  Just as Dutch stations have become service hubs that are about more than just trains, “Bike to Ride” reimagined high-ridership “park and ride” lots as gathering places and community assets. “We suggested secure parking areas and outlined a number of different formats, with either the transit agency or a private vendor taking care of the operation,” Maines says. “We also saw some examples where it was integrated with a bike shop or café, where you could drop off your bike and have it maintained during the day, as a way to establish the ‘park and ride’ not just as a place to get to, but as a place in and of itself.” Atlanta already has a model for this, with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA) Transit-Oriented Development Program, whereby the agency sells all or a portion of its surface lots to developers for mixed-use developments sharing public space.

  Figure 8-4: A design concept for a raised/floating bus stop, which incorporates bicycle parking and mitigates bike–bus conflicts. (Credit: Alta Planning + Design)

  In a huge, diverse region with complications presented by a variety of urban, suburban, and rural settings, Maines has no illusions about which development pattern presents the biggest obstacle to their goal of growing active transportation: “I think the primary challenge is the suburban context. With local streets that end in cul-de-sacs on one end, and let out to busy collectors or arterials on the other end, it’s really hard to bike or walk to destinations,” she laments. This lack of connectivity was a key problem identified in the plan, in response to which Maines and her colleagues proposed a series of “cul-de-sac connectors” creating bike-priority arterials adjacent to the main arterial roads.

  Those lower-density areas bring with them another issue: a lack of pervasive, reliable public transportation. “Our stations, especially as you get farther out of the city, are very far apart,” Maines explains. “So you could be right next to a transit line, and not really be served by it.” With vast numbers commuting (mostly by car) from these suburban areas to four major “activity centers” in the region already served by public transit, the hope is that cycling can be used to connect these neighborhoods to existing rail and bus lines, and “feed” the system with larger catchment areas, much as the Dutch understood years ago.

  Encouraging suburban commuters to leave their cars in their driveways—and thereby reducing the amount of traffic congestion—also means spending more money on public transport, something a growing number of American electorates appear to understand. In a move becoming reassuringly familiar in US cities paralysed by traffic, Metro Atlanta voters approved a half-cent sales-tax increase in the October 2016 election, raising $2.5 billion for MARTA over the next 40 years. These funds should go a long way to increase the system’s speed, frequency, and size, which—when complemented with better biking facilities—will make public transit a more convenient choice for far more residents.

  A citywide bike-sharing scheme is another strategy that the City recently implemented to provide residents, employees, and visitors with a first- and last-mile solution, although its restricted service area limits it to three major activity centers and the surrounding neighborhoods. Launched in June 2016, Relay Bike Share began with just 100 bicycles at 10 docking stations, but recently underwent a fivefold expansion, reaching into historically underserved areas. “With their second phase, their goal is to have bike-share at every transit station in Atlanta,” Maines discloses. “Transit and mobility are big components of equity for the City. So they are trying to expand bike-share outside more affluent parts of town, where it started.” Relay officials are also working to ensure that it is accessible to everyone, regardless of economic means: “They offer a reduced rate for low-income residents, which is five dollars a month. They also hire ‘Atlanta Bike-Share Champions’ from the Westside neighborhoods to lead education and outreach in those areas.”

  However, the “carrots” offered to incentivize more-efficient modes often neglect to include the “sticks” that disincentivize driving, beginning with the cost and availability of car parking, a strategy complicated by the City of Atlanta’s decision to privatize its parking services. “Atlanta has had the same parking vendor since 2008, PARKatlanta, who got a really good deal with the City,” Maines explains. “The way their contract was structured, PARKatlanta was incentivized to ticket, and not to increase their actual rates, because they were getting huge profits from the tickets, and not the meter rates.” Maines believes that the new contract with ATLPlus signed in 2017 will bring with it much-needed change, including a more dynamic funding model, and rates that reflect the market price of precious storage space.

  But those pricing increases won’t affect the large number of private vendors offering parking for rather cheap. “The reality is we have a lot of surface parking in the city, and the way the tax code is set up right now, the owner pays based on what their land use is, not the highest value they could get,” Maines points out. An upcoming rewrite of the City’s development code has made her optimistic for a fix, but it won’t instantly solve decades of systematic car-first policy and design. “The way it is right now, it’s still pretty easy to drive into the city, unfortunately,” she says. “And there’s still a lot of ‘park and ride’ lots at transit stations, and a lot of people drive to them, and take transit the last three miles of their trip.”

  In addition to these physical barriers, there are a number of psychological ones that Maines and her colleagues encounter: “There’s a bit of a stigma towards transit. It’s becoming less and less, but historically a lot of suburban places didn’t want transit in their neighborhoods because they thought it would bring the ‘wrong kinds’ of people,” she says. There are reasons to believe the tide is turning, though. Recently, both Clayton and Gwinnett Counties passed resolutions to be included in MARTA. “So the transit agency has already expanded bus service into Clayton County to the south, and has plans to expand into Gwinnett in the north, and there are opportunities for other counties to buy in,” she suggests optimistically.

  Biking in particular is susceptible to these mental hurdles, particularly when it comes to being perceived as a mode of transportation rather than recreation, based on the people who are (or aren’t) already pedaling on Atlanta’s hostile streets. “There are a lot of people who might not have a stigma against bicycling but are nervous to do it, because they don’t see others doing it generally,” Maines submits. “Or the folks they do see out in the suburbs are riding a cheap mountain bike on a sidewalk to get to a bus station. And they don’t see that as something that’s desirable, something they want to be doing in their life. We want to create an environment where people driving may see someone using a well-designed bike lane, with separation from traffic and nice landscaping, and feel tempted to get out of the car and join them.” This is where the region’s larger walking and cycling plan—dubbed “Walk.Bike
. Thrive!”—becomes critical, as an environment is shaped to entice the “interested, but concerned” crowd onto their bikes, thus attracting more casual riders, and engendering a culture where cycling is a perfectly normal and acceptable way of getting around.

  In the two years since the “Walk.Bike.Thrive!” and supplemental “Bike to Ride” reports were published, the ARC has been quick to start implementing the programs and policies around it. “A lot of the local governments here are very low-capacity when it comes to active transportation, so it’s about giving them the tools they need to create success on their own,” Maines indicates. That includes a regional trails vision that closes priority gaps and identifies new trails of regional significance, hosting walk- and bike-friendly community workshops with cities and towns, completing a data-intensive analysis of high-crash-rate corridors via a Safety Action Plan, and building an online bicycle and pedestrian resource center. “This is a resource geared towards planners and public officials who may not have the training or capacity to hire a consultant for bicycle and pedestrian planning,” she says.

  As they race headfirst into the project-implementation phase, Maines is unequivocal that one factor will make or break the region’s efforts to get more residents walking, cycling, and using public transportation: communication. “With 98 cities and towns involved, there’s a lot of coordination that has to happen between them, and a lot of responsibility delegated to community or business improvement districts,” she says. “There are a lot of different jurisdictions, and a lot of the time they just don’t talk to one another. So there would be really good synergy that would occur if there were more conversation happening.”