Facilitating Suburban Bike-to-Rail PRESENTATION TO PETALUMA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BJORN GRIEPENBURG SEPTEMBER 2, 2015
Overview WHY DOES BIKE-TO-RAIL MATTER? - Context & Literature RESEARCH QUESTIONS PLAN REVIEW BIKE NETWORK ANALYSIS - Methodology - Findings RECOMMENDATIONS
Benefits of Bike-Transit Integration Reduced Automobile Reliance Active Living Compact Development Near Transit
Benefits of Bike-Transit Integration Extends the catchment area far beyond the walking range of one-half mile; widely-accepted distance is three miles for access trips (Martens 2004). High potential in low-density suburban areas, where trip starting points and destinations are dispersed over a larger area. Caltrain s systemwide bicycle access mode share: 17% in 2013! More cost-effective than park-and-ride or feeder transit (TRB 2005).
Station Access: Whose Responsibility? In many jurisdictions, the transit agency has limited control over conditions on streets and roadways surrounding transit stops and stations and must work with other governmental agencies to make improvements. Nine of the 56 participating agencies reported that they had established partnerships with other agencies to plan and make improvements to bicycle facilities in areas surrounding transit stations (17). -Transportation Research Board, Integration of Bicycles and Transit (2005) measures to promote bike-and-ride are hardly likely to be implemented without an explicit bike-and-ride policy none of the involved authorities public transport operators, municipalities, road authorities, or the national government considered access and egress trips to public transport stops their responsibility (336). -Karel Martens, Promoting bike-and-ride: The Dutch experience (2007)
Research Questions (Sonoma County Phase I Stations Only) Political will: Do jurisdictions have supportive policies or goals for bike-transit integration? Infrastructure: Do existing and planned bike facilities facilitate lowstress access to the stations?
Plan Review Regional & Local Planning Structure Regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission Role Regional Transportation Planning Agency & Metropolitan Planning Organization Duties Plan, coordinate, and fund programs and projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Relevant Plans Plan Bay Area(2013), Regional Bicycle Plan (2009). County Sonoma County Transportation Authority Role Congestion Management Agency Duties Relevant Plans Coordinate funding for road, bicycle, pededstrian, and public transit projects; help coordinate land use, air quality, and transportation management among jurisdictions to prepare Congestion Management Program. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2009), DRAFT Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014). Local Sonoma County (Unincorp.) Santa Rosa Rohnert Park Cotati Petaluma Relevant Plans Station Area Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans..
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans Provisions aimed at integrating bikes with transit often focused on bike parking & allowance of bikes onboard. Wide variety in language Require / Implement / Support Safe Routes to Transit referenced in three of five plans, but no action items, strategies, or next steps identified. No designated distances or safety measures for transit-related bike improvements (some for pedestrian). Many addressed support for the SMART path. Petaluma integration within bicycle network.
Station Area Plans Strong emphasis on Complete Streets approach within station areas. Some references to the importance of connectivity between Class I bicycle facilities, including the SMART path. Varying degrees of attention given to the importance of connections with bicycle facilities beyond the station area.
Bike Network Analysis People will bike up to three miles to access regional transit (that s all of Petaluma). How well do the existing and planned bicycle facilities encourage bicycle access and egress trips from the SMART station?
Bike Network Analysis The number of miles of bike lane or bike path in a city can be a misleading statistic unless those facilities genuinely offer a low-stress bicycling environment, and unless they are linked together in a coherent network that provides relatively direct access between people s homes and destinations (8). -Mekunia et al, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012)
Bike Network Analysis How well does an on-street lane (Class II) account for safety and perceived comfort?
Bike Network Analysis How well does a shared lane (Class III) account for safety and perceived comfort?
Bike Network Analysis Solution: Assign stress levels to the street segments. Geller (n.d.) The Four Types of Cyclists Mekuria, et al (2012) Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) LTS 1 8-80 LTS 2 Inexperienced adults LTS 3 Experienced adults LTS 4 Fearless adults Facility Type On-Street Lane (Class II) Mixed Traffic (Class III) Residential LTS 1 LTS 1 Minor Collector LTS 1-2 LTS 3 Major Collector LTS 2 LTS 4 Minor Arterial LTS 2 LTS 4 Rural LTS 3 LTS 4 Major Arterial LTS 3 LTS 4 Highway LTS 4 LTS 4
Bike Network Analysis Solution: Assign stress levels to the street segments. Geller (n.d.) The Four Types of Cyclists Mekuria, et al (2012) Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) LTS 1 8-80 LTS 2 Inexperienced adults LTS 3 Experienced adults LTS 4 Fearless adults Facility Type On-Street Lane (Class II) Mixed Traffic (Class III) Residential LTS 1 LTS 1 Minor Collector LTS 1-2 LTS 3 Major Collector LTS 2 LTS 4 Minor Arterial LTS 2 LTS 4 Rural LTS 3 LTS 4 Major Arterial LTS 3 LTS 4 Highway LTS 4 LTS 4
Bike Network Analysis Solution: Assign stress levels to the street segments. Geller (n.d.) The Four Types of Cyclists Mekuria, et al (2012) Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) LTS 1 8-80 LTS 2 Inexperienced adults LTS 3 Experienced adults LTS 4 Fearless adults Facility Type On-Street Lane (Class II) Mixed Traffic (Class III) Residential LTS 1 LTS 1 Minor Collector LTS 1-2 LTS 3 Major Collector LTS 2 LTS 4 Minor Arterial LTS 2 LTS 4 Rural LTS 3 LTS 4 Major Arterial LTS 3 LTS 4 Highway LTS 4 LTS 4
Bike Network Analysis the stress of a route is determined by its most stressful link, not an average (2). -Mekuria et al, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012)
Petaluma (Existing) Road Distance 1 mile 2 miles 3 miles LTS 4 Advanced (All Streets) LTS 3 - Experienced LTS 1&2 MODE SHIFT
Petaluma (Planned) LTS 4 Advanced (All Streets) LTS 3 - Experienced LTS 1&2 MODE SHIFT
Bike Network Analysis Key Findings Planned facilities will appeal primarily to experienced cyclists; nearly complete LTS 3 coverage within three miles of all stations (after incorporating planned facilities). There appear to be few planned low-stress connections to the SMART Path.
Summary Nearly everyone in Petaluma lives within a bikeable distance of the SMART station (the same goes for those who commute into Petaluma). There should be considerable effort put into facilitating bicycle access at the Petaluma station by both SMART and the City of Petaluma. Adopted plans and policies supportive of transit-oriented development and alternate modes. Minimal park-and-ride planned. Petaluma Transit appeals primarily to captive riders. Think low-stress connectivity to entice new cyclists.
Recommendations Create performance targets for bike-transit integration and monitor over time. Switch from a Class I-III classification scheme to one that reflects stress/comfort levels. Prioritize projects that facilitate bicycle access and egress trips to/from the station. Work to integrate the SMART path within a low-stress bicycle network. Focus on connections between the Lynch Creek Path and the SMART station. Wayfinding!
Recommendations Switch from a Class I-III classification scheme to one that reflects stress/comfort levels. Create performance targets for bike-transit integration. Prioritize projects that facilitate bicycle access and egress trips to/from the station. Work to integrate the SMART path within a low-stress bicycle network. Focus on connections between the Lynch Creek Path and the SMART station. Wayfinding!
Contact Bjorn Griepenburg bjorn.griepenburg@gmail.com 707-709-6806