Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77
I think there should be more discussion on bike-transit integration, though am not sure the best way to achieve that.
There are some options including:
- cycling routes for interested, but concerned demographic connecting to and from all LRT\BRT stations
- secure cycling parking facilities at LRT\BRT stations accessible via CONNECT card & with CCTV surveillance (particularly at stations like Brentwood which are high ridership and close to university)
- bike racks at LRT\BRT stations (5% of station daily ridership); "Bike & Ride"
- bike hangers on LRT vehichles (4-8 per car for use during offpeak hours)
- extend hours bikes can be brought on LRT lines in contraflow direction
- awareness campaign of folding bikes on LRT and buses timed early in Spring
- change signage on LRT overpasses from "cyclists must dismount" to "cyclists yield to pedestrians"
- bike racks on front of buses (perhaps only appropriate near MRU)
As for bike racks on buses, most american cities (with the exception of New York) have bike racks on all buses. Calgary is really sucking right now for cycling facilities near major activity centres and this I think is till a bigger barrier than bike racks.
I think the focus should be surrounding more bike\LRT\BRT integration which includes improved cycling routes to LRT\BRT stations. Then at the stations one can deal with the problems of security and theft by having secure parking facilities as well as bike racks.
There is value in bike\transit integration as also building upon transit orientated development, less parking requirement compared to autos, reduced feeder bus stop frequency near LRT\BRT stations and optionality for active mode lifestyle.
Some of the above items don't have much capital $'s cost associated with it, but all of them require some technical manpower.
|
Perhaps an equitable fee for service should be charged. Someone mentioned $200K was used to convert one route and twenty bikes use it. That's too much premium for the extra service. It is similar to suburb houses costing extra to service and work being undertaken to make things more fair. If we're going to spend extra to make this happen, the beneficiaries need to take an extra burden. Similar to the view that users of the thousands of off-leash acres of prime land should have a see for use applied.
I know the above is going to be controvercial - that is the intent. Debate is good.
Threaded Mode